Should Weath Be Redistributed?

[Rumred]

Im actually against wellfare, medicaid, and other programs like these. My problem is when mommy and daddy give you money and you live your life partying and living off the interest. THAT IS MY PROBLEM. I mean talk about dead weight. Those people are much more of a problem then the near-homeless people trying to feed their family off of 400 bucks a month.

So would your method be then to not let the money they inherit gain interest as you said making money off their money or just take most of it when its passed on? Either way their are ways around this via stocks and property that can be turned around and sold.

I don't really have a issue with kids getting money given to them their parents earned when they pass or before hand. Its no different then if my mom died and passed on the house and some money to me tho granted on a grander scale. I do however favor a inheritance tax on such large fortunes but within reason. Say daddy leaves two billion to his son then take half or so. The whole not allowing money to gain interest in banks tho i am not sure where i stand on that. I don't know how that would affect the banking system and economy as a whole.

[Stanton Biston]

Wrong. The wealthy had to sell their us dollars in exchange for Swiss francs. Whoever bought those us dollars then spent them in the us in some way.

Isn't stuff then traded on the currency markets? There's tons of money bound up there. I mean, not that I disagree about the swiss thing. Or that money is out of circulation. Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't point out that we don't have enough currency to have all the money 'circulating'. And that money sitting in a bank is the only way for banks to be able to lend, even if they're lending 10:1.

[Maleficus]

People that have never had money dont realize the competitive advantage it gives you. Thats why all these pawns that voted no, really dont understand what is fare and what isnt. You ever heard the term "It takes money to make money"? Well let me tell you its true, if you have a million bucks in the bank. It is VERY easy to keep that in the bank and make 80k a year off it. IMO this shouldnt be possible, you should have to WORK for every penny you earn (like the middle class does)

OT: Should the rich be taxed at a higher rate?? YES because it makes sense to have EVERY person (regardless of how much money you have in the bank) work for the money they make. I would like to see that competitive advantage taken away from millionaires and billionaires and level the playing field. It will result in a more innovative, diverse, and equal economy which every1 will reap the benefits of. If you wanna make money, it should be because of your IDEAS and HARDWORK, not because you got lucky, made a million, and hired some guy from a hedge fund to cheat the system and make you tones of money...

Wow. Bitter much?

Possibly the options for the poll should have been: "No." and "Yes. I'm mad at other people for me being a failure and i deserve what they have...because THAT would be fair."

But to your point of having to work for EVERY penny, i have to assume you are against retirement. That's what your post conveys.

[Nadev]

This isn't a bad contention per se, but I do want to point out that in the real world, the people who are actually representing the view that capitalism is good are also pushing for less spending on education, which of course has a disproportionate impact on poor schools.

Unless the idea is that the 'masses' are the middle three quintiles and bottom quintile is expected to not participate vis a vis they're no longer 'an issue'.

We don't need more spending on education. The money needs to be allocated better.

[Cepheid]

So would your method be then to not let the money they inherit gain interest as you said making money off their money or just take most of it when its passed on? Either way their are ways around this via stocks and property that can be turned around and sold. I don't really have a issue with kids getting money given to them their parents earned when they pass or before hand. Its no different then if my mom died and passed on the house and some money to me tho granted on a grander scale. I do however favor a inheritance tax on such large fortunes but within reason. Say daddy leaves two billion to his son then take half or so. The whole not allowing money to gain interest in banks tho i am not sure where i stand on that. I don't know how that would affect the banking system and economy as a whole.

See this is the funny thing about conservative thinking. "I don't really have a issue with kids getting money given to them their parents earned when they pass or before hand." SO YOU ARE FINE WITH PEOPLE GETTING MONEY THEY DIDNT EARN? You have lost all credibility.

[Kamari]

There's no way to do it suddenly, as it is a generational problem directly relating to two factors: The breakdown of the family, and lack of need to work hard.

Near me, the Cleveland Public School system is failing as hard as a school can fail, even though they spend 40% more per student than the school I went to.

My answer to the school issue is two-fold.

One, promise EVERY child that graduates a chance to continue their education, be it college or trade school, and fund their education through a personal tax that they would opt into that would be a lifetime tax. There would be brackets determined by the school you pick (e.g. Kent State would be 2% for life, Harvard would be 5%). The brackets are established in such a way that the lifetime tax would cost you 30-50% more than your education, and that money would be used to fund vouchers and boarding-school style public options that would allow students from crap homes the option of a stable environment to learn and grow in. I can't imagine any but the very worst parents denying their children such an opportunity.

Two, EVERY government assistance program at every level needs to stress learning, growth, and responsibility. As they say, beggars can't be choosers- every bit of assistance that is offered needs to be offered through programs that teach and enforce self-reliance and accountability. The Unemployment Office needs to figure out WHY people don't have jobs, rather than just handing out a check for not having one. Some states do this already, but most don't seem to.

One of the problems with education is that every public school's funding is based upon test scores and how they perform, and so the schools focus on doing well on these tests instead of teaching kids useful information/cognitive reasoning/useful things in general. Here in DC, our schools are annually one of the best funded in the country and are also the worst in the country. Another problem is the hundreds of charter schools that have popped up over the past 15 or so years as a result of voucher programs.

The problem with the charter schools is two fold:

1. It draws more and more kids out of the normal public school system, leaving only those who are unable to get into these schools and creating an even worse environment in the public school system.

2. Sure, some of these charter schools are great and provide great opportunities to the kids that are able to get into them, but many of them are not so great and have been created with the incentive that getting vouchers/money in this area in relatively easy because the demand for parents to get their kids out of the public school system is so high. With hundreds of charter schools it is hard to keep an eye on them and make sure they are keeping up their standards of practice, allowing many of them to slip through the cracks and provide poor education to the kids who attend.

The lifetime tax idea is pretty interesting, but enforcing it and trying to rank schools into different % categories would be pretty difficult.

[oblivionx]

Regardless of semantics, inflation is depreciation of current money when the supply of money is increased.

If we have a nation of me and you... and I have 1 dollar and you have 1 dollar and we somehow reach the conclusion that I will run the government... then I decide I need 1 dollar to run the government and print it out. Well your 1 dollar and my 1 dollar are depreciated by that one dollar I created. We went from a total value of 2 dollars to 3. so your one dollar now is worth less.

[bergmann620]

Most people would spend all their money in under a year and have to go back to work immediately. In 5+ years everyone would be working again.

They might be looking for work, but all those jobs would be gone. The smart, hard working people would have taken their million-four's overseas and ramped up manufacturing to meet the needs of the nouveau-riche. As that money dried up, the jobs would die off again, but the owners/CEO's would just cash out and scale down at that point.

Have you ever read about the guy in Star Wars Galaxies that built a million-dollar RMT business? He owned all the shops that people bought from, so when he sold gold to the wholesaler, the gold buyers turned back around and spent their bought gold back into his shops, along with any new credits they earned. Funny stuff, imo.

[Cepheid]

Wow. Bitter much?

Possibly the options for the poll should have been: "No." and "Yes. I'm mad at other people for me being a failure and i deserve what they have...because THAT would be fair."

But to your point of having to work for EVERY penny, i have to assume you are against retirement. That's what your post conveys.

You work your life and save money for retirement, then you retire and use the money you saved. No i dont have a problem with this.. learn more.

OT: this boils down to a basic question to me "should it take money to make money", my feeling is NO, a guy with 1 million in his account should have the same likelyhood of making 80k in the next year as a guy with 0 in his bank account. seems reasonable to me but then again i havnt been brainwashed by the GOP.

[Rumred]

See this is the funny thing about conservative thinking. "I don't really have a issue with kids getting money given to them their parents earned when they pass or before hand." SO YOU ARE FINE WITH PEOPLE GETTING MONEY THEY DIDNT EARN? You have lost all credibility.

Their family earned it however that is the difference. They worked for the money they should be able to pass it down to their kids. If you don't think so then this rule should apply to all walks of life. Sorry Timmy i know your mom worked hard for this fifty thousand and house she saved but you didn't work for it so no dice. Many parents work hard and save up money to pass down their their kids. What is wrong if daddy became a billionaire and wants to leave their kids money so they can live it up? They worked for the money and now you say they dont have the right to say how that money is used once they die? No i will not agree with that and most people wont.

[mittacc]

My dad was a pilot, he made around 45-55k a month. While my aunt made around 15-17k a month(all before tax). My dad had to pay around 50% in tax, and my aunt around 25-30%. How is that FAIR? I'm cool with people paying from their own capability, but with that i mean the same percentage. If you earn more you still pay more even if you have the samer percentage....I HATE that there are borders where suddenly ''sorry dude, you just got a promotion and now you have to pay an additional 30% in tax, you're not so happy about your promotion anymore, are you?''

my dad payed around 25k in tax while my aunt only payed 4.8k. How do you consider that fair? that my aunt would keep 70% of her salary while my dad only 50%? shouldn't it pay to work your ass off in school and get a good job? My aunt slacked and got the job as cashier, while my dad became a pilot because he worked his ass off.

Give everyone the same percentage in taxes, then we'll talk aobut welfare....

EDIT: gave the correct numbers

[IIamaKing]

Well the US seems to have a worthless welfare system(not bashing your country), at least from what I read, it seems ineffeciant, there seems to be little to no follow up and control, which leaves it wide open for cheaters and people to exploit it.

Whats messed up is my example is a WIDELY known problem with food stamps at least here in WI, other states my have better control I don't know.

So we have this issue of miss use of assistance but no real effort to fix it.

[Kamari]

My dad was a pilot, he made around 45-55k a month. While my aunt made around 15-17k a month(all before tax). My dad had to pay around 50% in tax, and my aunt around 25-30%. How is that FAIR? I'm cool with people paying from their own capability, but with that i mean the same percentage. If you earn more you still pay more even if you have the samer percentage....I HATE that there are borders where suddenly ''sorry dude, you just got a promotion and now you have to pay an additional 30% in tax, you're not so happy about your promotion anymore, are you?''

my dad payed around 25k in tax while my aunt only payed 4.8k. How do you consider that fair? that my aunt would keep 70% of her salary while my dad only 50%? shouldn't it pay to work your ass off in school and get a good job? My aunt slacked and got the job as cashier, while my dad became a pilot because he worked his ass off.

Give everyone the same percentage in taxes, then we'll talk aobut welfare....

EDIT: gave the correct numbers

Well that's because, according to your info, you live in Sweden. Very socialist thinking country, although a more moderately scaled tax system I don't have a problem. I'm not sure if your numbers are right either as I don't know the tax system details there. Also, 25-30% of 15-17k is not 11.2k :/

[Cepheid]

Their family earned it however that is the difference. They worked for the money they should be able to pass it down to their kids. If you don't think so then this rule should apply to all walks of life. Sorry Timmy i know your mom worked hard for this fifty thousand and house she saved but you didn't work for it so no dice. Many parents work hard and save up money to pass down their their kids. What is wrong if daddy became a billionaire and wants to leave their kids money so they can live it up? They worked for the money and now you say they dont have the right to say how that money is used once they die? No i will not agree with that and most people wont.

SO your perfectly fine mooching off your parents, but you dont want people mooching off the government? check and mate. there is a fine line to walk regarding death tax and so on. I would be in favor of a 50k limit (untaxable) or something like that.

[Kamari]

Whats messed up is my example is a WIDELY known problem with food stamps at least here in WI, other states my have better control I don't know.

So we have this issue of miss use of assistance but no real effort to fix it.

Since food stamps are controlled by the state, I'm sure some are much better/worse than others.

[Deleted]

SO your perfectly fine mooching off your parents, but you dont want people mooching off the government? check and mate.

People are extensions of their parents by birthright, they're not extensions of the government.

[blib]

Do you think we should redistribute the wealth of rich people who have worked so hard to get where they are?


Why or Why not?


In my opinion, innovation does not come from slacking and waiting around for government hand outs, it comes from honest, efficient, hard working people that bring something different to the table.


What about you?

So if I understand you right rich people, which would be CEOs and such, are the ones working hard but the lower income person working at a factory, mines, construction or doing any kinds of actual labor is not hard working, hes slacking around, and therfor deserves less then a CEO?

[Jackmoves]

There's no way to do it suddenly, as it is a generational problem directly relating to two factors: The breakdown of the family, and lack of need to work hard.

Near me, the Cleveland Public School system is failing as hard as a school can fail, even though they spend 40% more per student than the school I went to.

My answer to the school issue is two-fold.

One, promise EVERY child that graduates a chance to continue their education, be it college or trade school, and fund their education through a personal tax that they would opt into that would be a lifetime tax. There would be brackets determined by the school you pick (e.g. Kent State would be 2% for life, Harvard would be 5%). The brackets are established in such a way that the lifetime tax would cost you 30-50% more than your education, and that money would be used to fund vouchers and boarding-school style public options that would allow students from crap homes the option of a stable environment to learn and grow in. I can't imagine any but the very worst parents denying their children such an opportunity.

Two, EVERY government assistance program at every level needs to stress learning, growth, and responsibility. As they say, beggars can't be choosers- every bit of assistance that is offered needs to be offered through programs that teach and enforce self-reliance and accountability. The Unemployment Office needs to figure out WHY people don't have jobs, rather than just handing out a check for not having one. Some states do this already, but most don't seem to.

I agree with this, well maybe not the breakdown of the family(or do you mean like the greater/extended family?), I think a child of divorced parents can go on to be just as succesful as anyone els.

Your 2nd point sounds quite a lot like we do it actually, you are not gonna recieve welfare without providing contact details for every job you have applied to for to your social worker, you are forced to go to different meetings with job coaches, and if you are on welfare for +3 months you going into the last phase where you need to do job practise at an actual job. This would still take quite a bit of government funding though, which needs to be generated through taxes. If the population of a country is against using tax money on things such as that it will be hard to make it work.

[Scathbais]

Biased much?

Problem is, not all wealthy people worked as hard for it as you think. They were just in fortunate circumstances, had family wealth to support their empires, got lucky... not all of it was earned through the hardest of work.

I could think of a lot of people in various careers earning not much above minimum wage who I'd bet work a hell of a lot harder than many CEOs and whatnot. And it's not always work just "anyone" can do.

On that note: I sort of think it should be "redistributed." But not directly. I don't believe wealthy people should get tax breaks. Let's look at the big picture: if the top 5% of wealthy Americans paid just slightly more taxes, the rest of the population would have to pay NO taxes, and the government would have MORE income to work with. And starting with that, we could greatly reduce poverty, as smaller businesses could afford to pay their employees more, or hire more employees, reduce joblessness, offer better unemployment to those actively looking for work. Reduce poverty = reduced crime. Reduced crime = better country to live in.

Let's just say this: if most of our wealth wasn't in the hands of the top few, and rather other people who work their asses off got paid more appropriately for their work, we'd have a much better country overall.

People should get paid based on how hard they work, not their fortunate circumstances that most of us have no control over.

Well you already got your wish. 50% of the country pay almost no federal income tax, yet get the majority of the benefits of those tax dollars.
Raising taxes does not reduce poverty. Poor people will still be poor and will have less incentive to try to improve their financial situations.
Here is the latest data from the IRS website (2009 data was the latest I could find) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inratesnap.pdf

So the top 5% pay 60% of all Federal Income tax. The bottom 50% pay 2%. Is that not their fair share? How much more do you think the government should TAKE from them? When is enough enough?

The problem is that politicians promise to give people stuff in order to get elected and then expect the taxpayers to be happy to see their hard earned income taken from them to pay for all the campaign promises/political favors given/owed by our politicians.

So people should get paid on how hard they work? So the guy who cuts my lawn should get paid more than me because I work in an office behind a desk?
You fail to realize that many of those wealthy people you are complaining about, such as the "evil", "greedy" bankers for example, work 80-90 hours per week, have to travel and work at a moments notice, don't have much family life and work under a highly stressful environment with very little job protection/retirement benefits.

[Stanton Biston]

We don't need more spending on education. The money needs to be allocated better.

But what if that isn't sufficient. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 50% of the spending on education in the country is inefficient. There's more than a 50% gap between the top performing public schools and the bottom performing public schools. Unless the goal is to bring all schools to the middle, something else has to be done.