Redistribution of Wealth

Captain America said:

I have no problem reading your words. I just hope I never step in them.

Click to expand...

that might be the throwaway post of the week

MissLToe said:

They can. Why do you think they can't?



Yes, as I said they either are hard workers or they were fortunate enough to be born into a rich family. That's life.



If you work hard, handle your money well, discipline yourself - you'll most likely do well in life. I fail to see how you think hard workers can't make it in this country.

Some questions for you and whoever wants to answer...

~ Do you believe there should be a cap to how much money one person should make?

~ Should 100% of the wealth of a person who has died be given to the government regardless of how much it is? I mean, their family didn't earn that, the person who died did, right?

~ Is it possible for a person living in poverty as a child to be rich later in life in this country? If so, how? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

Captain?.....

I would like to see redistribution of opportunity....family connections can get anyone into Yale or Harvard, actual merit is secondary.

UtahBill said:

I would like to see redistribution of opportunity....family connections can get anyone into Yale or Harvard, actual merit is secondary.

Click to expand...

That is beyond moronic. I have known dozens of kids whose fathers went to Yale or Harvard who were turned down. "Legacies" had a higher GPA graduating Yale than non legacies. Why? Smart people tend to have smart children. How would you "redistribute" opportunity?

I follow professional tennis. It is amazing how many top tennis players have parents who were star athletes. Kim Cljister's father was a famous soccer star, her mom an olympic gymnast. One of the Russian stars is the daughter of a world famous cycling coach and a woman who won six world championships. Her brother was a silver medalist in the Olympics in 1996. Julius Erving's daughter made it to the semis of wimbledon. so how are you going to redistribute the genetic advantage those people have?

Your post oozes populist bitterness towards those who have done better than you have

Kal'Stang said:

Rich people do give lots of money out to others that need it for education. But it won't ever been enough to close the gap. Everyone that is rich could give away all of their money to give people a higher education and it still wouldn't be enough. That has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with the sheer amount of people involved.

Which brings up another problem. In the US most of the jobs that actually pay enough to keep a person from living on welfare require higher education. This can be proven by simply driving down the right road. I've seen billboards that have matter of factly stated that you need an education beyond highschool.

So, perhaps the answer (beyond bringing factories into the US) could lie in making higher education more readily available to the general public. Maybe even making it somewhat based off of regular schooling. I mean is there really a valid reason as to why a collage costs money to attend while a high school doesn't (I'm talking about to the kid that attends..not the parents)?

Click to expand...

That statement is wrong.

American said:

That statement is wrong.

Click to expand...

It's half-wrong, unless trade school or job training is counted as "higher ed". I know a massively-certified, highly experienced welder who became a welding contractor for oil rigs who makes over 200k a year. A lot of skilled-blue-collar trades can make very good money, if you have some smarts.

But unskilled labor is rapidly going down the tubes as far as a viable mode of making a living.

Goshin said:

It's half-wrong, unless trade school or job training is counted as "higher ed". I know a massively-certified, highly experienced welder who became a welding contractor for oil rigs who makes over 200k a year. A lot of skilled-blue-collar trades can make very good money, if you have some smarts.

But unskilled labor is rapidly going down the tubes as far as a viable mode of making a living.

Click to expand...

true-and there are lots of kids who would be better off learning how to service BMWs or Lexus automobiles that going to college. Lexus techs are getting 40 bucks an hour at the place where my car gets serviced. That's a bit more than people with Masters in teaching or art history are getting in many places. I have always noted that America cannot compete in terms of costs in the unskilled labor market. We also have to try to reduce certain pathologies that serve as obstacles to people becoming skilled in a trade or educated

Goshin said:

It's half-wrong, unless trade school or job training is counted as "higher ed". I know a massively-certified, highly experienced welder who became a welding contractor for oil rigs who makes over 200k a year. A lot of skilled-blue-collar trades can make very good money, if you have some smarts.

But unskilled labor is rapidly going down the tubes as far as a viable mode of making a living.

Click to expand...

Well, to me any schooling after highschool is considered as "higher learning". So yeah a trade school would be considered as such.

TurtleDude said:

true-and there are lots of kids who would be better off learning how to service BMWs or Lexus automobiles that going to college. Lexus techs are getting 40 bucks an hour at the place where my car gets serviced. That's a bit more than people with Masters in teaching or art history are getting in many places. I have always noted that America cannot compete in terms of costs in the unskilled labor market. We also have to try to reduce certain pathologies that serve as obstacles to people becoming skilled in a trade or educated

Click to expand...

My brother is a professional mechanic. He puts himself through schooling every couple of years just so he can stay on top of things.

haymarket said:

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?

Click to expand...

I find that selfish folks that only care about themselves tend to ignore this fact.

TOJ said:

What resources and/or financing did Steve Jobs or Bill Gates have before they started a business?

I guess it is just easier to sit back and bitch about others not doing something than putting forth the effort to do it yourself.


.

Click to expand...

It's a damn shame that so many people fall into that pant****ter attitude. They don't realize with a little effort, you can still do anything in this country. People in other countries and people fresh off the boat in America would laugh at the woe is me, the system is stacked against you rants on this thread. Bottom line, you can become anything you want in this country by YOUR own effort no matter what your socio economic status.

Awesome! said:

It's a damn shame that so many people fall into that pant****ter attitude. They don't realize with a little effort, you can still do anything in this country. People in other countries and people fresh off the boat in America would laugh at the woe is me, the system is stacked against you rants on this thread. Bottom line, you can become anything you want in this country by YOUR own effort no matter what your socio economic status.

Click to expand...

Disagree. Until sexism, racism and ageism no longer exist in this country? That is total crap.

Kali said:

Disagree. Until sexism, racism and ageism no longer exist in this country? That is total crap.

Click to expand...

If you find a reason that prevents you from achieving success you normally will not

I would like those who chose downwards to explain why the top 2% control 95% of the wealth--because if it is being distributed downwards, they're doing a piss-poor job...

...this should be interesting.

hazlnut said:

I would like those who chose downwards to explain why the top 2% control 95% of the wealth--because if it is being distributed downwards, they're doing a piss-poor job...

...this should be interesting.

Click to expand...

95% of the wealth?

OH THE DRAMA

redistribution is the government taking wealth from some and giving it to others

the top 5% pay most of the federal income taxes anyway-

hazlnut said:

I would like those who chose downwards to explain why the top 2% control 95% of the wealth--because if it is being distributed downwards, they're doing a piss-poor job...

...this should be interesting.

Click to expand...

You have a source?

American said:

You have a source?

Click to expand...

While I did not vote there is a response to your question. Perhaps you and many who phrase the question as you do miss the point. Rather than look at the top few percent and see that much wealth is held there, it would instructive to look at the list of the top wealthest people fourty years ago and the same list today to see if the list has changed materially.

So The two richest people in the U.S. Gates and Buffet were not among the richest people in the 70's. In the post industrial period we continue to see a shrinking of the middle class, while the top 1% has a bigger slice of the pie. Look at who our economy rewards people. If you come up with an idea like facebook or Groupon you can become a billionaire. If you can hit a golf ball 300 yards like tiger you can make 100 million dollars a year. That is in our economy you can impact more people than ever before such as the examples above. However if you can shovel snow you are limited to the amount of driveways to can shovel before you get tired. You also compete with everyone who has the skills to shovel a driveway, including those who do it for themselves, and pay zero.

So it is not the fact that there are haves and have nots. The government taxes at about the same rate of GDP as our historical average. We are spending well in excess of that average. We also know that the tax system has changed over the last fourty years so that now many more people pay zero federal taxes. So it would seem that there is more spending for lesser income people, and on average the higher income folks are paying an increased percent of GDP as there are more people paying zero.

Perhaps a better question is what is the proper amount of income redistribution downward versus the silly question of which way does redistribution flow.