Amazon.com Widgets
  • There is a finite amount of wealth

    There is a finite amount of wealth in the world to go around to everyone. It would be fine if the wealthy let the funds go, and allowed the money to spread and redistribute, but that is not how they got wealthy. To make matters worse, society has been set up to perpetuate the gains towards the wealthy - it takes money to get money (hiring people to get money for you), not to mention the banking industry - loans, APR, etc. Government needs to come in and offset that. A quick study on Nordic government and economics should present the case that there is a possibility to establish a fair structure that not only rewards those who can perform, but doesn't allow them to gain an excessive control of the wealth, which has occurred in the US, among other countries. It's fine to earn a bigger piece, but remember that it must go around - and right now the fat kid took almost all and didn't leave any for anyone else.

  • To those greedy money-mongers

    When you claim people are lazy then they don't deserve to live a quality life, maybe you are intentionally being blind on the facts that those people who work two or three full time jobs and barely can support their family. You tell them they don't work hard enough? Maybe they are not as cunning and greedy as you. Remember the resources of this world is limited, when you are getting more, you are taking it from others. Should you tell them they deserve less right to live? That is why communism didn't work: because people are greedy and selfish, and you are one of them!

  • Abolish the current monetary system, no private owners. Currently a Massive Ponzi scheme, with hyper-inflated asset bubbles, awash with crooked money. No chance4average joe.

    New system needs wealth limits with redistribution rules, Owned & controlled by users (voting & paid by a tax) Interest and fees should be abolished. Current wealth distribution is criminal, the bankers as well as leaders who agreed to a privately owned banking system, should be in prison or deathrow

  • Seeing a large section of the world population struggling each day for a meal, is very disturbing.

    Can any logic/explanation be bigger than providing food, home, dignity to the needy down trodden people? What good is money, if not used to help the people who need it the most? Competition among the countries is healthy but what happiness will it give, if people somewhere else are dying?

  • Capitalism is greedy

    The wealthiest 85 individuals hold more capital than the poorest 3.5 BILLION. Why should there be people living in opulence whilst the majority live in poverty? Once famine and poverty are eradicated then perhaps an upperclass would be acceptable. Until then there shouldn't be individuals living lavish lifestyles; its unethical and disgusting. These people who you think "earned" their wealth did nothing more than exploit a broken system and take advantage of a consumerist population who fail to recognize that they're willingly giving their money to a corporate agenda. Stop buying shit that you don't need, it's destroying the planet. If you think that there's nothing wrong with the distribution of wealth then you're a halfwit, nobody needs fucking billions of dollars.

  • To a degree

    Now, I'm no economist, but I do know that the economy has slowest growth when the income gap is huge, and when everyone has equal income and no incentive to compete. So, somewhere in-between these two extremes is where the economy grows fastest. People need incentive to go and work for their pay check, so they don't end up sitting on their butts and suck up the government money. Redistribution of wealth shouldn't be a massive tax on one's income, but it shouldn't be eliminated. The redistribution of wealth levels the economic playing field, thus presenting those who are willing to put in the work and contribute to our economy a better chance to make more money and make a better lives for themselves. So, minimal redistribution, but enough to close the wage gap to level the playing felid to create faster economic growth.

  • Technology making it more necessary

    Technology is getting to the point - and robotics especially - where the people who can actually create wealth are fewer and fewer. And be creating wealth I mean anyone who can assemble a machine or pick fruit. A small group of people - software people, engineers, science and technology experts, creatives and entrepreneurs who can work with those people will be responsible for a greater and greater proportion of production in the economy. The wealth gap is only going to get larger as the technology gets more sophisticated and the number of people who can handle it becomes fewer. The economy itself may grow (in terms of production and profits it is happening now) but more and more people will be left out of the productive part of it. Remember, half of all people are less intelligent than the other half - what are they going to do in an economy where virtually every job they had is gone? This isn't a case of those workers shifting from one sector (agriculture) to another (manufacturing) as was done during the industrial revolution. This is a case of most work being done at some time soon by machines. All of that money earned by super efficient corporations and high income earners will need to be redistributed in a way to keep social upheaval to a minimum.

  • Disincentives for the wealthy to hoard resources and cash.

    We don't need outright wealth redistribution but we do need to maximize the trickle down effect. The wealthy need to be given reasons to spend much more of their fortunes hiring people to do things they need done. There should be a limit to the amount of assets that can be parked on the sidelines in the economy. Imagine a 10% annual tax on all net worth over some very large number ($100 million). However you are given a 100% tax credit for paying wages. Basically if you have $1 billion in net worth then you need to be paying $90 million in wages to get out of the tax. It's your choice though. Give it to the government or hire people to do what you want. It is absolutely evil to hoard assets. It's a form of gluttony that oppresses others through inflation.

  • 99% of people are poor in the world

    And the 1% of people are rich, also they hundreds of billions of $/€/£ that can be reset and win more. Why cant they give a bit to nearly 8billion people in the world? Well if they say they are so rich and show off their money why cant they show it for a real reason... People are dying for money, which is nothing for them.

  • It's basic fairness, and simple common sense.

    The 100 richest men and women alive could sacrifice 4/5 of their combined wealth, completely transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of people (whether here at home or abroad, we can debate the relative merits of each approach when the times comes), and STILL be left, each, with more cash than most people, at their current wages, would make in a thousand lifetimes. Those who argue that redistribution is simply a bad idea in principle need to look those who disagree in the eye, with a straight face, and insist that even a hypothetical quadrillionaire would have no ethical obligation to single-handedly cure global proverty, starvation, homelessness, and other crises which money (and money alone, in the final analysis) can alleviate.

  • Governments should not be robbers

    Governments already tax people. While all people receive same benefits from the tax, rich people pay more. If the government intervenes into the redistribution of wealth more rapidly, this would simply be unethical. Think of this example. In a class of 4 students, one student scored 100, one 50, one 40, and one 30. The teacher calls the student who got 100, and says, "Hey Bob, since you scored 100 while all others scored failing grade, why don't you give them 10% of your grades each? You will still be in the first place!". So, the kid who scored 100 now only scores 70, because the teachers steals his points to give it to students who failed. If you believe this is wrong, I have no idea why you are supporting yes.

  • Governments should not be robbers

    Governments already tax people. While all people receive same benefits from the tax, rich people pay more. If the government intervenes into the redistribution of wealth more rapidly, this would simply be unethical. Think of this example. In a class of 4 students, one student scored 100, one 50, one 40, and one 30. The teacher calls the student who got 100, and says, "Hey Bob, since you scored 100 while all others scored failing grade, why don't you give them 10% of your grades each? You will still be in the first place!". So, the kid who scored 100 now only scores 70, because the teachers steals his points to give it to students who failed. If you believe this is wrong, I have no idea why you are supporting yes.

  • Frugality + Hard Work

    This issue is very prevalent in today's society. Today we live in a world that is constantly consuming. Millions of people are in debt over vacations, cars, homes, technology, and other things that they can't necessarily afford. I agree that the extreme distribution of wealth and income needs to be addresses, but with that said higher taxation is not the answer. People need to start taking responsibility throughout their entire lives. They need to learn to work hard and be smart with what they are given. Taking money from the wealthy is not the answer. The answer is innovation and hard work. People need not be detracted by the things in this world to a point that they become enslaved to want and desire. Sacrifice of yourself and time is what will earn you your way to happiness.

  • If you give everyone the same amount of money

    Then in 1 year the rough graph of wealth distribution will be back to how it was before the wealth was redistributed. The only people wanting money are poor people. Some of the richest men today come from backgrounds of extreme or regular poverty, Anyway can make it to the top. Anyone

  • No no no

    I do not think so because no it should not be redistributed because education is important for filling a word quotient when you don't care enough to write a legitimate response. I like my money don't give it away bernie sanders didn't earn his first paycheck until he was 40

  • Government shouldnt take all of ones earnings

    Sure, there are those who hoard their wealth, leaving nothing for the poor, but again, there are those who want to get even richer and thus create new businesses, which in turn creates new job opportunities, giving the poor the basic necessities is fine, but when you take too much of our income and give too much to the poor, the poor can live off just the money from other people, not having to work once in their lives. Taxes should be for the basic necessities, and rather than spending money to feed the homeless, why not open new job opportunities for mundane tasks offering small amounts of pay THAT THEY NEED! And will earn with their own efforts and not steal the efforts of other people

  • Mediocrity should not be rewarded

    Government should provide us with the basics, like food, healthcare, and shelter. Beyond that, your quality of life should be based on what you put in to the economy. If you work hard, apply yourself, take risks and make sacrifices that pay off, you deserve your American Dream. If you sit on your ass bitching about not enough being done for you, you deserve nothing. Tax payer funded social services don't drop out of the sky. All that money is coming out of someone else's pocketbook.

  • Of course not

    Hard earned money is yours if you earned it, and should be distributed out to people who didn't work as hard as you did to make it. Maybe you could use tax dollars to fund things like disability and medicaid for people who really are in need of it, or else will die, but beyond that, people who are too lazy to work shouldn't be rewarded with compensation.

  • Yes to public projects, no to forced charity

    I think that the purpose of government should be to run things like police, schools, etc. to keep people safe and give them the opportunity to succeed. Therefore, I support the fact that they collect taxes for these things. However, governments' goals should not be to redistribute wealth! It's the equivalent of forced charity. It's one thing if people want to help others out of the good of their hearts, and quite another if you take their money and rather than spending it on public services that could benefit them as well (which I'm guessing the gov't promised to do!), giving them to others. Yes, those others may be in terrible poverty. They may be disabled. They may have five kids. They may have the saddest life ever. Still, whether or not to use YOUR MONEY to help them should be a PERSONAL choice, not one the government makes for you with the money you entrusted to them!

  • It Never works.

    Firstly the term is tendentious, wealth isn't distributed in the first place. Secondly the majority of evidence suggests the intentions and the results of Government redistribution are poles apart. It creates dependency rather than the ability to create wealth for oneself, maintaining poverty amongst those who are supposedly to benefit. .


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