• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Redistribution of Wealth

Redistribution of Wealth


  • Total voters
    42

SirPwn4lot

Banned
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
523
Reaction score
148
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hey guys.

Choose your answer and debate why below. We're looking at a timeframe from the 1970s until now.
 
Last edited:
The term "redistributed" is a loaded one. To me, redistribution means government taking from those who make income and giving it to others. I do not define redistribution as say someone working for 10 dollars an hour pursuant to their employment contract and through their labor making their employer say 12 dollars an hour (ie a two dollar net gain).

what we have done is redistribute billions of dollars through social welfare programs and yet all it does is increase dependency and has not alleviated "poverty" (though our poor today are far more materialistically better off than even our middle class was a few decades ago)
 
No doubt about it - the rich are getting richer. Sad day for a sustainable society.
 
No doubt about it - the rich are getting richer. Sad day for a sustainable society.

tell us what would be going on if the rich were not getting richer--that would mean that investments in the USA were failing, corporations were all going bankrupt.

think about it.
 
tell us what would be going on if the rich were not getting richer--that would mean that investments in the USA were failing, corporations were all going bankrupt.

think about it.

Is that what was happening in the Fifties and Sixties when the middle class grew and income was expanded to the workers?

People want corporations to do well and for employers do to well also PROVIDING that they too share in the prosperity. And in a nutshell that is the problem of the last ten years. the prosperity has been only one way.
 
That's primarily because they DO something to make money, rather than sitting on their asses waiting to be fed.

Ouch-that's gonna leave a mark

When people whine about the rich getting richer it is one of the stupidest things being said. If you are "rich" it generally means you are making more than you spend. So each year that your are rich, you accumulate a bit more. Now if the rich were not getting richer that would mean the following

1) no one could earn more than they spent
2) taxes were taking everything left over
3) the economy of this country had completely collapsed

I guess that is what Haymarket and his ilk want-either a 100% taxation at a certain level or the economy to completely collapse
 
Upwards. The United States has more wealth inequality now, than at any point in the past 80 years.
 
Upwards. The United States has more wealth inequality now, than at any point in the past 80 years.

the longer a nation exists, the more the most skillful will accumulate. and I will note that welfare socialism is an opiate-the addiction to which saps the ability of many to try to achieve more
 
Is that what was happening in the Fifties and Sixties when the middle class grew and income was expanded to the workers?

People want corporations to do well and for employers do to well also PROVIDING that they too share in the prosperity. And in a nutshell that is the problem of the last ten years. the prosperity has been only one way.

If you don't want to answer the question then don't respond to the question. That is complete evasion on your part. The rich were getting richer in the 1950s as well. look it up
 
the longer a nation exists, the more the most skillful will accumulate. and I will note that welfare socialism is an opiate-the addiction to which saps the ability of many to try to achieve more

Where is your proof of this in nations other than the USA? I would love to see those facts from an objective authoritative source.
 
I just returned from Brazil, a country that has struggled with huge levels of wealth disparity for virtually its entire history. Many parts of Sao Paulo are every bit as nice as New York City...but they are within walking distance of favelas where people eke out a living in grinding poverty.

Anyone who says that wealth disparity doesn't matter, or isn't the concern of the wealthy, is deluding themselves. Uneducated and unhealthy workforces will have an adverse impact on the economy, as will crime and other social ills associated with poverty. These problems affect everyone, directly or indirectly.
 
Where is your proof of this in nations other than the USA? I would love to see those facts from an objective authoritative source.

well we have wage a "war" on poverty where billions have been given to "the poor" and we still have lots of "poor"

Lets stick with the USA-I couldn't care less what happens in places Like GREECE or FRANCE that are paragons of self sufficiency and sound governmental budgets
 
If you don't want to answer the question then don't respond to the question. That is complete evasion on your part. The rich were getting richer in the 1950s as well. look it up

Boy do you miss the point. People are not angry that the rich get richer. The point is for EVERYONE to get richer. Got that? In the Fifties and Sixties the prosperity flowed through the middle class also. Unions were strong and the middle class was strong. Today, the rich get richer and everybody else is losing ground that took a generation or two to previously gain. Why do you ignore that fact?
 
I just returned from Brazil, a country that has struggled with huge levels of wealth disparity for virtually its entire history. Many parts of Sao Paulo are every bit as nice as New York City...but they are within walking distance of favelas where people eke out a living in grinding poverty.

Anyone who says that wealth disparity doesn't matter, or isn't the concern of the wealthy, is deluding themselves. Uneducated and unhealthy workforces will have an adverse impact on the economy, as will crime and other social ills associated with poverty. These problems affect everyone, directly or indirectly.

what is your solution? taxing the rich more and telling the average citizen that he has no duty to pay for more and more government services that make him more and more dependent on the government?

I'd really like to hear from you all that whine about how bad wealth disparity is what your solutions are.
 
the longer a nation exists, the more the most skillful will accumulate. and I will note that welfare socialism is an opiate-the addiction to which saps the ability of many to try to achieve more

Why would the most skillful tend to accumulate, the longer a nation exists? Every generation will have talented people and untalented people. I see no reason to think that a nation should by default gravitate toward greater inequality...it depends on our policies and society.
 
my question to Turtle about backing up his claims provided without any evidence in his post


Where is your proof of this in nations other than the USA? I would love to see those facts from an objective authoritative source.

his answer


well we have wage a "war" on poverty where billions have been given to "the poor" and we still have lots of "poor"

Lets stick with the USA-I couldn't care less what happens in places Like GREECE or FRANCE that are paragons of self sufficiency and sound governmental budgets

So you DO NOT have any independent evidence to support your claims.
 
Why would the most skillful tend to accumulate, the longer a nation exists? Every generation will have talented people and untalented people. I see no reason to think that a nation should by default gravitate toward greater inequality...it depends on our policies and society.

They don't. Turtle cannot support this and when challenged cannot provide any independent evidence to support the claim.
 
Boy do you miss the point. People are not angry that the rich get richer. The point is for EVERYONE to get richer. Got that? In the Fifties and Sixties the prosperity flowed through the middle class also. Unions were strong and the middle class was strong. Today, the rich get richer and everybody else is losing ground that took a generation or two to previously gain. Why do you ignore that fact?

you seem ignorant-again-of global economic reality and the fact is-those who aren't educated in the modern information systems etc aren't going to make good wages like they could 40 years ago by working on a factory line in Detroit.

the rich have always gotten richer. But lots of those in the middle class aren't keeping up with what it takes to remain in the middle class when a Guy in India can do the same job for 6 an hour that someone in an American Union demands 35 an hour to do

what is your solution?
 
They don't. Turtle cannot support this and when challenged cannot provide any independent evidence to support the claim.

you cannot disprove it. and you have no solutions that have any rational basis

those who are falling behind often engage in poor life choices. If you

1) stay in HS until you graduate
2) avoid doing drugs and associating with those who do
3) do not have children until you are married

your chances of being poor are about 2%.

Now none of the above require the rich to pay taxes or government intervention.
 
you seem ignorant-again-of global economic reality and the fact is-those who aren't educated in the modern information systems etc aren't going to make good wages like they could 40 years ago by working on a factory line in Detroit.

the rich have always gotten richer. But lots of those in the middle class aren't keeping up with what it takes to remain in the middle class when a Guy in India can do the same job for 6 an hour that someone in an American Union demands 35 an hour to do

what is your solution?

Which is a blatant lie. The unions and middle class have led this country to tremendous leaps in job productivity over the last decade and their reward has been lowered or stagnant wages if they are fortunate and job loss if they are not. What about this situation do you not get? Or is it that your ideology prohibits you from even trying to get it?

Mu solution is to take a page from the Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution and employ the tools they gave us to protect American markets and American jobs. You remember those guys . right?
 
Back
Top Bottom