Amazon.com Widgets

Should the riches of a nation be distributed equally among its citizens?

  • A country's richest should give back to the country that made them rich

    One cannot achieve riches without one's country and countrymen. As such, the rich man should give back. The rich may disagree, but they are only wealthy by the effort of a community. The rich get rich by selling products or services, often to those in their community. If sold outside of the community, they utilize resources from within the community to create their products or services. They employ the less wealthy to work for them. They become educated, obtain opportunities, and make connections within their community. They live under the tax structures that allow them to be wealthy.
    Keeping the wealth to themselves, only hurts them in the long run. The roads the community can build and maintain with their money, allow the transport of goods and services. The hospitals keep them alive too. The police and firemen keep the rich safe and sound.
    If the poor are no offered opportunity, the community dies. The rich will no longer have their community, and their riches will eventually suffer.

  • Thinking like the Bourgiousie

    There are amazingly large gulfs between the classes nowadays and if you are not of that class you do not understand how varied it is. Many people need more help then they get and sometimes the reasons are something that cannot be change, leaving them in the lower class their whole lives.

  • The very though of wealth distribution turns my stomach.

    Yet another asinine day dream brought to you by liberal thinking.....In my book it's along the same lines as "if religion didn't exist and there were no countries everyone would be happy". Like most liberal ideas it sounds great(in a perfect world). In an economy goods are made, goods are sold and services are provided. There are a plethora of different jobs within the economy to support all of that naturally, everything from a garbage man to a neurosurgeon. So why then should someone who has spent ten years and hundreds of thousands going through medical school make the same amount of money as someone who may not have finished high school at all and performs unskilled labor? Not to say that one person is better than the other but all of that time and effort, all of that experience has value. The opportunity to better yourself, to better your life is what breeds innovation, it's the incentive for hard work. Which is exactly why you don't hear anyone say "I'm flying to North Korea for treatment, they have this innovative new procedure." Without innovation you have a lazy economy. Innovation makes it cheaper and faster to produce goods to even higher standards, it creates new goods that are in demand the world over, it motivates great minds to do great things. There are certainly people who start out with an advantage and there are lots of people who will never escape poverty. It is not the governments place to provide charity. Leave that to charities and churches. There are plenty of people who started out dirt poor and went on to become billionaires, such as Oprah Winfrey, Ralph Lauren and George Soros. The only thing holding anyone back is the "Welfare Mentality". Not everyone will get rich but you don't know what you might be capable of if you don't try.......

  • You Work For What You Get

    Throughout history, simply divvying up the nations wealth between citizens evenly, creates a system in which innovation is worthless. To acquire the same amount of wealth regardless of work invested requires asking the question, "Why go to college?" Why spend thousands of dollars to further oneself simply to make the same wage in the long term? Perhaps in a idealistic society where everyone goes into their profession simply because it is what they enjoy doing, this would work. But we do not live in an ideal society. If every citizen made the same amount, would there be enough doctors and inventors to continue progressive growth within a country? History points to no.

  • Jeez...Economics 101...If you're "getting" less value, it's your own fault

    Once again, "seeing is believing" or "perception is reality" strikes...Such a nasty, lazy philosophy used to ignore facts and see what you want to see.

    Maybe a simplistic example will help...

    There are, say, 10 people, with each $10, and everything [situation] is exactly equal...Everyone is happy. One of these people makes a small invest builds an amazing "widget" they know others will want to buy...Say it cost the investor $5 to make, and $2 per copy. The investor then turns and offers this widget [copies of whatever] for sale. People love it. They all buy this widget at, say, $5. ...So do the math...Who's ends up the "richest" person? The investor, right? F***ing BS...Everyone still has the same value, at least, when you decide to buy something...This is to what you're agreeing. All you can see is the money, and choose to ignore that everyone opted to be buy the widget through their owning determination it was a fair value. What throws stuff out of whack, is when you cannot determine what is fair value or you choose to ignore it because whatever you're are buying seems so "awesome".

    I am by no means rich; though I can understand why it sucks being rich in the U.S. You make something or provide services, people like it and buy it, and then turn around and complain you have too much money for your own good, or you should be taxed more because you can afford it. Yeah, sure they are probably using loop hole to save their cash...Who wouldn't? But a loop hole is fair if it's available to everyone. How about we stop worrying about what others are doing, live your own d*** life, and take a tiny bit of personal responsibility. All that matters is if the opportunity exists, and is fairly available. Completely up to you how "rich" you choose to live.

  • Not as long as money is the means by which man lives his life.

    There are definitely different types of people in the world, and in the context of the current subject, there are people that care so much about money that they will give anything to get and keep a lot of it, and then there are those that use money to live. Those that use money to live will never keep their equal share of the money, and those that amassed it in the first place will just end up with it again (or people just like them).
    The nature of the problem is not that some people make more money than others, but the money itself.
    First, it is an artificial construct that does not actually represent wealth, but the debt of others and requires everyone to believe in it for it to function at all.
    Second, the instant you take your first job, you psychologically and subconsciously accept that you are trading portions of your life to hold someone else's debt, and therefor set the worth of your life at that moment. At the same time and by extension, you are accepting the premise that some people's lives are worth more than others.
    Since we have all accepted this, the only way to change the gravitation of wealth to certain types of people is to make the amassing of wealth impossible.

  • The riches of a nation should be fairly distributed amoung it's citizens, but not necessarily equally.

    No one needs to be a billionaire. A nation in which extreme poverty and extreme wealth exist can not claim to be civilized or free. A nation's excess, the absurd accumulation of money by its elite, should be used close the gap between the rich and poor, not sit idle in someone's bank account collecting interest.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.