A question for opponents of wealth redistribution

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Alright, I know we have a lot of people in here who don't think wealth distribution is a good idea. My question for you is this: without wealth redistribution, how are people from historically disadvantaged groups (i.e., those whose ancestors were slaves, those whose ancestors were in peonage, those whose ancestors were heavily discriminated against) supposed to catch up economically with those who have been historically advantaged, such as those whose ancestors were nobility? I know that there are success stories here and there about people who pulled this off through good old fashioned hard work but I think that these people are the exception and not the rule. Bear in mind that a lot of wealth historically has not originated from hard work or skill but rather from titles and privilege.

What do you think?




posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
People generally against redistribution are people who do not want to pay for the poor. I include welfare, health, education and other services as part of redistribution.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


I too feel that any social service is ultimately wealth redistribution. But that does not answer my question. In order for me to get an answer I need to read comments for those who actually think wealth redistribution is a bad idea. No offense redled, but I'm not interested into this thread turning into an echo chamber of like-minded individuals.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by uberarcanist
 


Your question was:

Without wealth redistribution, how are people from historically disadvantaged groups (i.e., those whose ancestors were slaves, those whose ancestors were in peonage, those whose ancestors were heavily discriminated against) supposed to catch up economically with those who have been historically advantaged, such as those whose ancestors were nobility?


The answer is (sadly) very simple; They're not.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 


So do you agree or disagree with the concept of wealth redistribution? I ask because I feel that it may not even bother some of those against the concept that some individuals may just have the misfortune of being locked in generational poverty.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I think it would be more fair to take the money sezied from hard drug seizures by law enforcement and put all that towards the poor and needy. Then create a better system of filtering out scammers. What poetic justice, then we wouldnt need to redistribute wealth. Unfortunately the redistrubution is merely socialist idiolog theft.



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermind77
 


Is it theft? Or is it righting the still-existent wrongs that are carrying over from a more unjust era?



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I can only humbly use myself as an answer to your question...

I was born very disadvantaged, abandoned by my parents, orphanage, foster homes the works....

Then my Granny, (God Rest Her Soul) found me and raised me on a dirt farm in West Virginia...

No bathroom, (Out House), We bathed in one of those Metal Wash tubs kept in a shed when not in use. Heated our water on the wood cook stove and heated the house with wood and coal.

I was determined to be a success and even chose a field that is not "famous" for success, but one that fit me and my societal concerns. I wanted to be successful, but I wanted to help people too.

Worked my butt off to pay for college, joined and proudly served in the Marines then did my time on the streets and now, well....

I am successful...

No I am not rich, but money is no longer a worry. My future is planned and comfortable...

If I can raise above the hardships I had to face, anyone can. That is what America is all about. We all have the same opportunities that I took advantage of in life, the opportunity to work hard, stay honest, learn from my mistakes and persevere..

I am not going to blow smoke up anyones skirt and tell you that it was easy. Not at all. In fact it was tremendously difficult at times and there were times I thought I would die one day alone and afraid.

Because of some of the decisions I made, I suffer still with emotional and psychological problems, but no matter what, I know that because of this great country and the opportunities out there, I will only keep getting better.

There was never any luck involved, or social advantage, I am the unluckiest person in the world. it is all about perseverance and attitude. I have succeeded because I refused to give up.

ANYONE can do it...

Of course wealth distribution is a bad idea. It is theft plain and simple. I have what I have because I have worked, struggled and fought, yes actually fought for what I have. To imagine that ANYONE has ANY right to take what I have away from me because THEY feel it is better suited for someone else is THEFT.

They are taking what I have earned and giving it to who? Someone less fortunate? Show me someone that started with less and I will donate to them, I do all the time. Problem is there are not too many that have started with less than I did. But I still give, a LOT to many different social programs. Because? Because I care, not because I have too.

Anyone that favors wealth distribution is very simply in favor of theft, stealing, whatever you want to call it.

Semper



[edit on 10/26/2007 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I am supremely opposed to "wealth redistribution" as it's used politically.

I am, more specifically, against forced wealth redistribution by any means. Religion, governmental, or otherwise.

It's often times considered to be cheap, haughty, or bigoted in some way, but that is as untrue as strictly negative commentary is many times.

I am a father of 3, 30 years old with a 27 year old wife who stays at home with the kids (which is more than a full time job normally), leaving just my salery. I don't make a lot of money but I own my own house.

To be honest with you, I'd have to say this: No one deserves the sweat off my brow MORE than my children and wife, and my opinion wouldn't change regardless of how much money I had.

I don't disagree with helping people. In fact, I think it's great. I find it's very easy to agree with the idea (helping the poor or doing the best thing for everyone economically) and disagree on the method.

I would venture a guess at what would happen if Social programs simply went away (along with Federal income tax).

I'd be willing to bet that in the long run (and short run in most cases), everyone would be far better off.

There is no amount of legislation that will encourage, fund, or promote ANY good social, environmental, or monopolization system better than people owning their own property (including money). Shoot, private property rights is a far better solution to the environment than anything else since environmental groups could simply buy land to save it and keep it clean. It's far better than tax breaks to huge companies for maybe trying to maintain certain standards. (competition speaks better)

When push comes to shove, the people of this country have been depressed and deflated by the increase in power of the central government. (not to rabbit trail) A good example would be the funeral protests by the Westboro Baptist Church.

So many people were mobilized by that it was insane. What was the answer? Less freedom, more laws. My answer would be more freedom, allowing the social structure to work itself (Patriot Guard Riders for example) and take pride (which those who worked felt pride) in defending something or fight for something using their own rights.

The same is true for economics.

I've often heard "but we aren't talking about you, only those with plenty of money". To me, this is still false logic to me. Even the marginally wealthy have an investment to give. They are the ones who invest in business, which increases competition to those mega-chains.

We need to promote an ownership economy anyway. That would do more for minority families (and poor white people, cause there's a ton of those too) than any government grants or loans.

Top to bottom, the people need to get moving, not government.



[edit on 27-10-2007 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I really appreciate those who are sharing their personal experiences. I am still trying to work out what I believe about wealth redistribution and it always helps to have someone who can offer a personal perspective.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   


We need to promote an ownership economy anyway. That would do more for minority families (and poor white people, cause there's a ton of those too) than any government grants or loans.


This is absolutely true. Our system of credit is a proven problem (look at the Great Depression).

What is going on right now is the government is taking our money (Federal personal income tax, Social Security Tax, Gasoline Tax) and they are spending it on social programs that require more and more money each year due to misuse and mishandling. Large government programs do not know how to control their spending because they are not responsible for EARNING the money they are given. We need more accountability of our money. We need to audit the government.
Welfare is used as a crutch for people in need and also as an excuse for people to never have to work in their lives.

Redistribution of Wealth

Redistribution of wealth reaks of CLASSISM, which goes both ways. Just because someone is born into money does not mean that they are not entitled to it. Money is property of an individual and an individual can decide to pass it on to their children or donate it to a cause.

Our economy would be in shambles as no one could afford to invest money into anything significant (only the monolithic government could do that). The power of choice (in what is invested in), the power of invention, and the power of the individual will be stifled.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by uberarcanist
 
Before we can answer the question, we need to know what you mean by 'wealth redistribution'.

Are you talking about taxpayer-funded public services, such as education and health care, for all? And perhaps a dole or similar system for the most disadvantaged?

Or do you mean confiscatory taxation and regulation, as practised by populists and Socialists?

Or do you mean barefaced expropriation, as practised by tyrants everywhere?

The first option is not just acceptable but desirable, and easy to justify both economically and ethically.

The second and third are just theft.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist Bear in mind that a lot of wealth historically has not originated from hard work or skill but rather from titles and privilege.


That may have been true to some extent in England and Europe, but less so in America. Many of the notorious "robber barons" of the gilded age were men like Andrew Carnegie, who was a poor immigrant when he started out in the steel business, or the Vanderbilts, who were of modest means before they made a fortune on the railroads. I'm not going to says theirs were heart-rending, Horatio-Alger-type "rags to riches" stories as much of their wealth came from corrupt business practices and the exploitation of workers. While it's true the Vanderbilt heirs have not had to work for several generations, you cannot say they originally came from money or nobility. Carnegie gave much of his fortune away before he died.

If the wealth of families like these were to be redistributed, who would do the redistributing, and what criteria would be used in deciding who would benefit? Would a person have to prove they were from an historically oppressed group? What about white people who were never titled or rich? We have the Soviet Union and China as examples of how wealth has been redistributed in the past; many would agree that we don't want to follow them.

Sweden's socialist system depends on a high rate of taxation but also gives benefits to everyone. Sweden's culture is pretty homogenous, though, unlike the U.S.

Although I think some socialist programs, like universal health care, would be desirable I tend to agree with Astyanax that any out-and-out redistribution would probably amount to theft.




[edit on 26-11-2007 by Sestias]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Give it away, give it away now


Originally posted by Sestias
Carnegie gave much of his fortune away before he died.

And he did it on purpose. 'To die rich,' he said, 'is to die disgraced'.

This suggests a highly satisfactory answer to your question,


If the wealth of families like these were to be redistributed, who would do the redistributing, and what criteria would be used in deciding who would benefit?

an answer that many contemporary plutocrats, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, seem to have voluntarily adopted: get them to do it themselves.

We might encourage them to do so with the carrot of memorial honours and the stick of confiscatory death duties; or better still, we might simply adopt Carnegie's statement as an aspect of our social morality. The second way is harder because you cannot accomplish it by fiat; but we can achieve it, perhaps, by educating our children right.


We have the Soviet Union and China as examples of how wealth has been redistributed in the past; many would agree that we don't want to follow them.

There are many other salutary examples.

My family, a generation ago, used to be landowners in a very small way. Not small enough for the Socialist government that came to power in my country when I was entering my teens, however, so the family property (already subdivided between my grandmother and her several children) was expropriated and redistributed in tiny allotments among putatively landless folk brought to the district from other parts of the country. This was, of course, an effective piece of electoral gerrymandering in favour of the redistributors - though they were still wiped out at the next election - but what really made me think was what eventually happened to those two-acre plots.

You see, my family was still left with a fraction of its original holding, which, unprofitable though it was, still had to be tended and administered. This task devolved on my father (the youngest son) because nobody else wanted to do it. Over the next few years, I often travelled with him when he visited the estate at weekends, helping him to do what needed to be done there. On the way there and back, we would drive past the numerous smallholdings that had been carved out of what had once been our land.

For the first year or so the little plots seemed to be thriving under their new owners - but meanwhile, news from the community was all about quarrels between the locals and the newcomers, some ending in violence and even murder; there were property disputes, political disputes that ended up with people attacking one another with knives, all sorts of trouble. Simultaneously, agricultural productivity in the district went through the floor. Thus poverty was added to the other immediate effects of the redistribution, which were social upheaval and increased crime.

And soon, my father and I began to observe a new phenomenon: the tiny allotments had begun to grow fewer in number and larger in size. The more successful of the new landowners were buying up (or seizing) their neighbours' land. This went on for a while, till at last there were only a handful of estates (as they could now fairly be called) and the majority of the formerly-landless beneficiaries of the government's generosity were landless again. Only now they were landless and poor in a part of the country to which they had no longstanding ties, and whose longer-standing inhabitants were implacably hostile to them. Thus they found themselves even worse off than before the government stepped in to 'help' them.

That's Socialist wealth-redistribution for you. The experience of it in my early teens has made me a lifelong supporter of capitalism and the free market.

One more thing:


Although I think some socialist programs, like universal health care, would be desirable...

It's a terminological quibble, but I prefer to see such programmes as social-democratic, not Socialist. I can't think of them as Socialist, because then I wouldn't be able to support them with a good conscience (as I do). I loathe Socialism.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I wouldn't mind seeing an entirely total overhaul of the system and how we think of money. We put worth in what? Things? Where is the real worth though? In people who can make something of those things. What is gold worth if no one wanted it?

Instead of putting value on something such as gold or a paper dollar, put the value on people. Every person has worth no matter what. That everyone deserves a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food to eat so they don't starve.

I'm not talking socialist or redistribution, but a complete over haul of how we look at things and do things, and yet keep the basics of our current system. No wealth is redistributed. We all practically know that money comes out of thin air anyhow.

My radical crazy idea would be for the government to make sure everyone had a roof over their head even if it was a one room apartment with the bare minimum for an individual. A small house or trailer for a family. Use the welfare system already in place to give every one an alloted amount of money for necessities, utilities, and food.

If someone wanted more than a one room apartment with running water, a bath and toilet, a lamp, small fridge, a place to cook, a table and chair in which to eat, and a small inexpensive bed, then they would have to go out and work for all the extras.

Most people would want extras whether it is a bigger place, tv with cable, a computer, internet access, games, video games, be able to go out to eat, take a vacation, work on hobbies, and etc. Right there would be incentive for people to go out and work, build their own business, or invest.

Since the government is printing money to supply everyone with money, there would be no need for taxes and such. There would need to be some type of price controls so companies wouldn't charge 1000 for a loaf of bread though.

The government would need to make sure certain fields are very well paid and the professionals are taken care of such as doctors, health care workers, teachers, and others that are needed to be able to support a good community. This would also help ensure people want to enter those fields.

The doctors would be at the top of the list especially surgeons. They would be able to move into the best available houses, or get a manshion built for them. They would be able to buy what they want, and take vacations without having to worry about finances at all. In exchange, they would have to take care of x number of patients a month/year from all walks of life.

Otherwise the economy would basically be the same type of capitalist economy we have today. No money would need to be taken away from anyone. No property would need to be taken away. In matter of fact, I would like to see it that when someone buys a better house, and pay it off. That the house actually belongs to them with no strings attached. The government federal, state, or local would not be able to take it away from them due to back property tax or other BS.

Unfortunately nothing like this could even work, especially after most of our manufacturing jobs went across seas. For this to work, any country would basically need to be self sufficient. They would be able to make, grow, and mine everything they need. They could not be dependent on another country for anything. The problem is that the other country may not see the money as valid. There could be trading problems.

There will always be poor among us, but that still doesn't mean they have to be on the streets cold and hungry. It is that the economic system and values we have now make it that way.


[edit on 20-1-2008 by Mystery_Lady]





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum