Should Weath Be Redistributed?

[Deleted]

Nobody should get the same, some people just don't deserve it pure and simple and some jobs don't really warrent high pay. I would be however in favour regrading what certain jobs should earn. CEO's should still earn high above average, but not the ridiculous amounts that they shouldn't need to spend. But careers in the emergency services should definitly earn more (nurses, firemen, police) and jobs that keep everything rolling (the power industry, production and transport of goods).

[Rekindled]

Ofcourse it was unfair that your grandfather was discriminated against, but remember that those who discriminated also lost potential money as they didn't hire your grandfather..

I will point out that your opportunity cost argument does not hold up as the job was filled within a week at almost `/12 the cost.
More details are, with old printers the ink that they used was highly toxic, if he was to return to work and get even a small amount into his bloodstream he would die. Plain and simple, the doctor pointed out that he should not return for a month+ as that is how long it would take for the wound to fully heal, even bandaged it was risky.

He, being the work Nazi he is (haha seewhatididthere) only asked for a week, he had never had a day off, other than when his kids were born and always worked OT for free (as did pretty much everyone because there was no fair work Australia and what not.

---------- Post added 2012-05-05 at 12:12 PM ----------

Nobody should get the same, some people just don't deserve it pure and simple and some jobs don't really warrent high pay. I would be however in favour regrading what certain jobs should earn. CEO's should still earn high above average, but not the ridiculous amounts that they shouldn't need to spend. But careers in the emergency services should definitly earn more (nurses, firemen, police) and jobs that keep everything rolling (the power industry, production and transport of goods).

Well said, some deserve more than others, those who spends year preparing, training and earning a position should be rewarded. and those who do the bare minimum should get the bare minimum (and still be able to live on it) but no one is worth hundreds of times more than another person.

[Xarkan]

Funny how Scandinavia is always left out

Because socialism is not communism and even then Scandinavia is not entirely socialist

There is a difference between being to the left of a road and the middle :P

Or maybe

Think of a socio liberalist utopia. Then add a good dose of laws to infringe on personal freedoms. Stir the pot and cook for half a century. Serve your 'scandinavian political third way' well done

[tankbug]

OP:

So every rich guy is a hard working, smart fellow that has innovative ideas that helps mankind, whereas every poor guy is a slacker just waiting for welfare?

Maybe it's the other way around?

Every rich guy has inherited wealth and influence from a corrupt, evil family, whereas every poor guy is a good, humble worker being oppressed by the fascist capitalists.

Both of these statements are just stupid. There is a middle way, and that's how the government should work also. In any developed country, a person with talent can get rich and live a life of luxury, and a person in a more unfortunate position, will be caught by the safety net which is paid for by all of us with jobs. People who $50 000 a year will have problems with a 50% tax, whereas a person with $50 million won't even notice the difference in his lifestyle with 50% tax, so it's fair that wealthy people contribute more.

[Deleted]

I will point out that your opportunity cost argument does not hold up as the job was filled within a week at almost `/12 the cost.

If the discriminating employer hired people who were less skilled over your more skilled grandfather, only because of factors that didn't affect the job performance (skin color, nationality, etc), then the employer most certainly lost potential money. He ended up with a worse employee because of his discirmination.

[Catta]

Because socialism is not communism and even then Scandinavia is not entirely socialist

There is a difference between being to the left of a road and the middle :P

Or maybe

Think of a socio liberalist utopia. Then add a good dose of laws to infringe on personal freedoms. Stir the pot and cook for half a century. Serve your 'scandinavian political third way' well done

Soviet Union, China and Cuba were just as communist as Scandinavia - aka not very much

[Deleted]

I voted yes because I don't think Anarchy would be a good idea.

I read the first 10 pages of the thread and I love how most people assume that redistribution = everyone has the exact same disposable income.
Redistribution of income is not only transfer payments but also all kinds of goods, meaning police, military, politicians, education, health programs, roads, public beaches and forests etc.

[Larynx]

Everyone thinks Capitalism is great until you're on the other side of the wealth spectrum suddenly.

[Roose]

I think we should put a proportional burden upon the super wealthy. If they are not going to be altruistic and take their own steps in giving back then we need to make them. They can still be super wealthy and do everything they want. They just may have to avoid the solid gold toilet and send that money to fund a public library.

The role models are out there. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many other billionaires have accepted the added responsibility that comes with controlling so much wealth.

I really can't, and never will, understand the ones that do not feel any extra duty to the people who make their wealth possible. Then again, they have that desire for wealth and power that I do not. I have no desire for power or material possessions. I do not expect them to change their mindset, just understand that they are and will be judged by the decisions they make. When they could fund worldwide literacy projects and instead choose to build more palatial homes that they will never even use, they should be scorned by the public.

[Deleted]

I really can't, and never will, understand the ones that do not feel any extra duty to the people who make their wealth possible. Then again, they have that desire for wealth and power that I do not. I have no desire for power or material possessions. I do not expect them to change their mindset, just understand that they are and will be judged by the decisions they make. When they could fund worldwide literacy projects and instead choose to build more palatial homes that they will never even use, they should be scorned by the public.

People already give back to those who made their wealth possible. They pay their wages, buy their products and so on.

[Stanton Biston]

People already give back to those who made their wealth possible. They pay their wages, buy their products and so on.

I'm sure the dredges at Foxconn are feeling like they receive compensation commensurate with their quality of work and on the job risk. That they are thankful for every Samsung Galaxy Tab that's sold even though it has no direct impact on their pay. And that they feel they are being treated fairly because at least they're working for Foxconn and not that company that actually works it's workers to death.

[Wells]

If the discriminating employer hired people who were less skilled over your more skilled grandfather, only because of factors that didn't affect the job performance (skin color, nationality, etc), then the employer most certainly lost potential money. He ended up with a worse employee because of his discirmination.

So what you're saying is laws that fight discrimination are good for everyone. I agree.

[Laize]

I'm sure the dredges at Foxconn are feeling like they receive compensation commensurate with their quality of work and on the job risk. That they are thankful for every Samsung Galaxy Tab that's sold even though it has no direct impact on their pay. And that they feel they are being treated fairly because at least they're working for Foxconn and not that company that actually works it's workers to death.

Actually they do. If they didn't there wouldn't be people applying to work there in droves.

---------- Post added 2012-05-06 at 01:15 AM ----------

I think we should put a proportional burden upon the super wealthy. If they are not going to be altruistic and take their own steps in giving back then we need to make them. They can still be super wealthy and do everything they want. They just may have to avoid the solid gold toilet and send that money to fund a public library.

The role models are out there. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many other billionaires have accepted the added responsibility that comes with controlling so much wealth.

I really can't, and never will, understand the ones that do not feel any extra duty to the people who make their wealth possible. Then again, they have that desire for wealth and power that I do not. I have no desire for power or material possessions. I do not expect them to change their mindset, just understand that they are and will be judged by the decisions they make. When they could fund worldwide literacy projects and instead choose to build more palatial homes that they will never even use, they should be scorned by the public.

Yet I can't scorn the poor who opt to buy iPhones instead of insurance? I'm calling bullshit.

[Thrive]

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?

Not in the traditional sense, but because of capitalism it's constantly being re-distributed. You can say that it's not, but that's just a plain lie. People come up with new ideas, new inventions, new companies all the time. Hell who would have thought that Microsoft would be what it is today? The fact is someones always going to be control of the majority of wealth, and I'd rather it be judged on innovation, advancement, and the fact that everyone at least has some sense of a chance than any other way.

[Ralidyn]

Yes! Take the money from people who have more and give it to people who have less! I hope all the hippies who think that are ok with giving some of what they have to some with less.

Wait, you don't like that idea? I guess it's about you and not really about the idea. If you support the idea then you should go get some cash and give it to some who has less than you. If you don't dont do that then you're a hypocritical joke. I'm yet to meet a person who is willing to do that. Greedy jokers. You just want money for doing nothing.

[Winstonwolfe]

The role models are out there. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many other billionaires have accepted the added responsibility that comes with controlling so much wealth.

Did you feel the same way before they decided to "give back"? They horded their wealth for years and years. If you did, don't you think you should back off the current "wealthy"? They just haven't reached their "giving" stage yet after all. Maybe you should calm down on the wealthy.

[Deleted]

People who $50 000 a year will have problems with a 50% tax, whereas a person with $50 million won't even notice the difference in his lifestyle with 50% tax, so it's fair that wealthy people contribute more.

How is this possibly fair? It like saying "if I steal a bread from a minimum wage worker with a big family, it's bad cause they will starve but if I go steal it from a supermarket, they won't even notice it".

My point is, it's not fair, name one reason why rich people should contribute more. The country that's taxing them did nothing more for them than to that minimum wage worker, they don't owe a single cent more back to the society. I think the most fair way to run a country is just flat taxes, for example everyone pays 500 euros per month, not percentages but the very poor aren't required to pay some of it because otherwise they couldn't make ends meet.

Plus making the rich pay more is stupid anyway, it's not like they are just ok with the injustice and pay, most more successful ones will move their businesses elsewhere where they aren't taxed that much, like India and China etc. so it's doubly bad for the country, they don't get the taxes and the companies create jobs somewhere else instead of helping the country develop.

[Wells]

My point is, it's not fair, name one reason why rich people should contribute more.

Because they have more. You can't just brush off progressive taxation. 10% when you're poor is far more than when you're rich, because as your wealth increases the value of each dollar decreases.

This has been a hall mark of western society since John fucking Smith.

Plus making the rich pay more is stupid anyway, it's not like they are just ok with the injustice and pay, most more successful ones will move their businesses elsewhere where they aren't taxed that much, like India and China etc. so it's doubly bad for the country, they don't get the taxes and the companies create jobs somewhere else instead of helping the country develop.

Please don't mix income taxes and corporate taxes, its kinda dumb.

[Deleted]

Because they have more. You can't just brush off progressive taxation. 10% when you're poor is far more than when you're rich, because as your wealth increases the value of each dollar decreases.

This has been a hall mark of western society since John fucking Smith.

Please don't mix income taxes and corporate taxes, its kinda dumb.

So because someone has more, they should give it away? Why exactly? They are not more responsible for anyone, they didn't receive more help or support than the rest that they should repay. And no, progressive taxes only apply to some countries, not all, a lot of western first world countries don't have them.

[Deleted]

Did you feel the same way before they decided to "give back"? They horded their wealth for years and years. If you did, don't you think you should back off the current "wealthy"? They just haven't reached their "giving" stage yet after all. Maybe you should calm down on the wealthy.

Hoarded their wealth? Do you imagine rich people keeping all of their money in a gigantic vault embedded in a mountain?

Not in the traditional sense, but because of capitalism it's constantly being re-distributed. You can say that it's not, but that's just a plain lie. People come up with new ideas, new inventions, new companies all the time. Hell who would have thought that Microsoft would be what it is today? The fact is someones always going to be control of the majority of wealth, and I'd rather it be judged on innovation, advancement, and the fact that everyone at least has some sense of a chance than any other way.

Wealth isn't a zero sum game. In fact, every time there is a voluntary exchange, both sides of the exchange become wealthier. It is only with robbery, forceful exchange, that one side comes out the loser. This is what happens when government "redistributes" wealth.