Actually, this is incorrect. Keeping with the land analogy - take a look at who owns the land. The Federal government owns 30% of the US land. (http://nationalatlas.Gov/printable/fedlands.Html) Local governments own an estimated 8%. If you want to improve things, return wealth back to citizens rather than the government.
If you are looking at dollars, it's the government policies that are leading to impoverishment, increased debt (to be paid by citizens), and pushing jobs overseas. Rather than promoting class warfare, we should be pushing for responsible government. Instead, we take the stance if we can't all be equally rich, we should all be equally poor (Unless you are a bureaucrat or ally calling the shots)
The wealth was distrubity with equality of opportunity, everybody has the chance to become rich, it's their fault if they don't. It would be unfairly distributed if the goverment gave rich peoples money to the poor, for no reason. Equality of outcome is like saying you managed to build a mansion underwater but all of them each only built a small hut, you must share you progress with them, would you want some random person living in your house?
Capitalism is natures way of determining who is smart and who is poor. Many people stay at the level of their parents wealth. This is a statistical fact. Most would describe this as unfair, but on what level. When you inherent money or assets you must be wise in how you invest them, most are because intelligence is a gene. Smart people will make lots of money. There children will make more money because they will be equally smart and so on and so forth. So in a since life is unfair. Therefore everything that exists is based on some sort of chance. Genetics is not based on how good of a person you are. And genetics decides how intelligent you are. And your IQ decides how well you will do. So wealth is based on chance, but everything is based on random chance so it is not the governments place to even it out. This is a democracy not a communist country.
Wealth should be distributed based on talent, luck and/or hard work. There is no reason to take wealth from successful people and redistribute it so that people who did not work for it, or were not qualified to earn it, received it. Our society was based on free-markets and that means there will be both rich and poor. The wealth redistribution idea violates the principles our nation was founded on.
We live in a democracy and free market. There are countries that we can move to where almost everyone is at the same level of wealth. Here we have a choice to improve our lives by earning more and spending less. Thus increasing our wealth. Now some people are of course born into money, but somewhere in most of their ancestries someone was poor and worked hard to get where they are. The wealthy already support most of this countries budget. They are the ones really paying for programs to help the poor and needy and those who through no fault of their own don't have much. Punishing someone for success will not help us at all, and can destroy what most of dream and work for. Success!
Often times, the person who invents something useful is not the same as the person who profits off of it. So the assumption that capitalism is nature's way of awarding talent is false.
I also believe we have a moral obligation to take care of the poor without exploiting them for labor in the process (it is not reasonable to expect somebody to work multiple jobs and sacrifice personal time to make ends meet).
Because no and because I think that it shows that it is no because I think so. What I think is no, and I will for ever say no. For ever and I think no and will continue to say no and no. So I conclude no. No. Noh. Ok
Wealth is not distributed fairly in the United States. There is a lot more the government could do to stimulate the economy because when the wealthy just hangs onto their profits, nobody benefits. Sure America is a great country to become a success but it is a struggle if that does not happen.
Saying that America's wealth distribution is fair is a HUGE lie. The top 1% of America's population has 40% of the Nation's wealth. Imagine America's population as a company consisting of 100 people. The bottom 40% are the worst off of the workers: The janitors and maids. The middle class is represented by the slightly better off workers, an the top 9% of the population are the 9 best workers, earning the most money of all the workers. Now there's the top 1%. This is the company's boss/CEO, making up to 300 times the amount of money as the middle workers make. Not fair, right? I don't think so either. Thanks for reading.
There must be a stop to the extremely wealthy people. Who really needs to have over a billion dollars to make an honest living. I would be very happy just making over 55,000 a year. Its a shame how this country is supposedly a symbol of democracy when in reality its a properly cloaked communistic state!
If education and/or job training were more easily available to all, each of us would have far greater and more equitable opportunities to create wealth for ourselves, and thus a stronger national economy. This situation would (theoretically) help to perpetuate future success for each citizen and theI nation as a whole. More successful taxpayers can better support a development of future taxpayers. Not to mention the effect of just having a better educated populace=more informed voters! Perhaps voters that would finally vote with their conscience, not their party (or their church). We the people would no longer feel forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I believe Gerrmany's model of putting each high school student on an academic path or vacational path, then giving them every opprtunity to succeed at either, is what helped insulate the country frrom experiencing the levels of economic hardships that the rest of EU and the world have recently endured.
While wealth will never be 100% even for everyone (nor would that necessarily be a good thing), the excessive imbalance that currently exists in the United States is unfair. When so many people do not have proper food or shelter, it is unacceptable for the super rich to not bolster the rest of the community. Society as a whole would be better, if wealth was spread more evenly to raise quality of life for all.
You know, I'm not saying that a CEO needs to be making the exact same as a lowly peon, but you just can't convince me that they deserve to be making hundreds of times what their workers make. Those at the top buy off politicians and use their money to influence policy so that they get to keep more of their money and are able to take even more from those in a lower status than them.
There comes a point where the wealth distribution and the corruption becomes a threat to the very system upon which we depend. That is the point where wealth distribution becomes not only just unfair, but dangerous. We are long past that point.