reply to post by Sublimecraft
Great posts tonight! I'm really thankful that we can talk about this. You are all making this a worthwhile thread, thanks.
Excellent work, and I think you're pointing out an avenue of approach.
We can surely agree that money and candy are 2 different animals when discussing this point.
Maybe I can agree with you. I've seen
kids hold on to a candy bar with a grim determination that would shame any Wall St. banker. For the kids, it seems, every piece is golden.
Because the vast majority of those that have it most certainly did not work hard for it - unless "working hard" is code for exploiting the
many for the benefit of the few.
I'm having trouble following here. Any one who makes money in an illegal manner should have it all
confiscated. Perhaps we need laws making additional activities illegal? But what principle can we apply that allows us to take money from a person
working behind a desk, and not someone who makes it on a concert stage, baseball diamond, or catwalk?
But that leads us to what I think is your main point. If I understand correctly you want to redistribute from those who have a lot in a developed
country, to people who need it, wherever they may be. I have several little bumps in the road that are preventing me from following you too
1.) The government will decide how much to take and from whom. You may be talking about those with hundreds of billions of dollars. Interestingly
enough, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined are worth $112 Billion and they're the two richest Americans. By the time you get down to number 100
on the list of richest Americans, you're under $4 billion. And only the richest 10 Americans have wealth (not income) of $25 billion or more. I'm
assuming in all of this that you're interested in taking their property in various forms, not so much their income. Assume you take all of the
wealth and property from all of the richest 400, that will provide you with enough money to cover the federal deficit for one year. Then what?
2.) Everyone knows there will always be starving children, or elderly needing care, or disaster emergencies, or something. The government has no
trouble figuring out how to spend more than it takes in. I see no reason why the government, under a redistribution scenario, shouldn't just
confiscate everything and give people what it thinks they need.
3.) If you know your "candy" will be taken from you, why bother going out to buy a costume and freeze your little tutu off if you know you're
going to have to give nearly all of it away? Why not just hit a couple of houses and go home?
Thanks for the post. I'm learning a lot.