It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by filosophia
Some americans want wealth redistribution because they think they will get rich but the wealth never goes to the common man it always goes to the state or super wealthy. Did the people of the soviet union benefit from communism or did the common family suffer? If the test was taken by people who are lured by the promises of socialism it would show in favor of wealth redistribution but that by no means speaks for all americans, many of whom know free market capitalism is the only economic system that has proven to create wealth for the average family.
Originally posted by Destinyone
I want back what was taken away from me in the form of taxes. As I got older...more and more was taken from me. I guess it was redistributed...but I certainly didn't get a vote on who it went to.
I'm one of a whole generation who are getting ****** in the ponzi scheme of income tax. Property tax. You name it tax.
Originally posted by spacekc929
Anyways, in the study, Americans were overwhelmingly in favor of an unequal economic system, not a communist system. I don't think people have been "lured by the promises" of socialism, I think they simply think they live in a country where the rich and the poor are not as polarized as they currently are, and I think that people want to have a thriving middle class, such as in Sweden, as they demonstrated by choosing the Sweden pie-chart with no knowledge of what type of economy (capitalism, socialism, etc) it was representing.
Over the last 30 years, wealth in the United States has been steadily concentrating in the upper economic echelons. Whereas the top 1 percent used to control a little over 30 percent of the wealth, they now control 40 percent. It’s a trend that was for decades brushed under the rug but is now on the tops of minds and at the tips of tongues.
Since too much inequality can foment revolt and instability, the CIA regularly updates statistics on income distribution for countries around the world, including the U.S. Between 1997 and 2007, inequality in the U.S. grew by almost 10 percent, making it more unequal than Russia, infamous for its powerful oligarchs. The U.S. is not faring well historically, either. Even the Roman Empire, a society built on conquest and slave labor, had a more equitable income distribution.
To determine the size of the Roman economy and the distribution of income, historians Walter Schiedel and Steven Friesen pored over papyri ledgers, previous scholarly estimates, imperial edicts, and Biblical passages. Their target was the state of the economy when the empire was at its population zenith, around 150 C.E. Schiedel and Friesen estimate that the top 1 percent of Roman society controlled 16 percent of the wealth, less than half of what America’s top 1 percent control.
This index measures the degree of inequality in the distribution of family income in a country. The index is calculated from the Lorenz curve, in which cumulative family income is plotted against the number of families arranged from the poorest to the richest. The index is the ratio of (a) the area between a country's Lorenz curve and the 45 degree helping line to (b) the entire triangular area under the 45 degree line. The more nearly equal a country's income distribution, the closer its Lorenz curve to the 45 degree line and the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25. The more unequal a country's income distribution, the farther its Lorenz curve from the 45 degree line and the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the 45 degree line and the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the Lorenz curve would coincide with the horizontal axis and the right vertical axis and the index would be 100.
Proponents of the ‘‘estate tax,’’ for example, argue that the
wealth that parents bequeath to their children should be taxed
more heavily than those who refer to this policy as a burdensome
We ensured that all respondents had the same working definition
of wealth by requiring them to read the following before
beginning the survey: ‘‘Wealth, also known as net worth, is
defined as the total value of everything someone owns minus
any debt that he or she owes. A person’s net worth includes his
or her bank account savings plus the value of other things such
as property, stocks, bonds, art, collections, etc., minus the value
of things like loans and mortgages.’’
But we do fall into two camps..
1. Those that support more social programs and a progressive tax ..
Those people believe in programs that benefit those who can't afford it on their own, including medical, housing, food..
2. Those who don't believe social aid should be forced
These are people who generally believe that it's not the government's place to force them to pay for any social programs, if they wish to give to charity then they will do it on their own, if they want to help their neighbor they will do it on their own.. etc.. These same people ironically tend to not mind their tax money going to war efforts and other things but they get huffy if it goes to providing life saving medical.. I don't get that..