Wealth Distribution

[Smuckatelli]

Has anyone looked at this guys references?

Mother Jones is the predominate reference.

Is the information right or has it been cooked?

This really sounds like the Occupy Wall Street bubbas.

[Steelgrave]

Has anyone looked at this guys references?

Mother Jones is the predominate reference.

Is the information right or has it been cooked?

This really sounds like the Occupy Wall Street bubbas.

I don't take anything as Gospel anymore, but he's tossing around numbers which jive with a lot of figures I've heard before. I assumed he was liberal from the get-go.

[GDS_Starfury]

I suspect far more politicians are bought than fools.

why cant they be both?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

I suspect far more politicians are bought than fools.

why cant they be both?

Politicians probably act the fool when they have to do things they don't like. 

It seems to me the Swiss are leading western democracy with a few initiatives. Control of corporations - The company is part of society not the other way around. Line item tax "voting". To me that is huge. That is the real "government by the people, for the people" The rest of our nations seem too stunned to try to build a better democracy.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Has anyone looked at this guys references?

Mother Jones is the predominate reference.

Is the information right or has it been cooked?

This really sounds like the Occupy Wall Street bubbas.

The same studys are used here and at NYT
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[Windigo]

What's wrong with wealth inequality?

Why should wealth be redistributed? On what basis should it be redistributed?

What scares me is that there is a huge number of people who want to take money from one party and give it to another solely based upon their perception of fairness. I thought that system died with the USSR.

Fair question... really. Especially if its ethically/morally made money.

But why shouldn't wealth be redistributed?  Is it right that it be so highly concentrated when the impacts of it are clear?

[Staggerwing]

The concept of 'fairly earned' might be better defined as well. If you made your money building lots of cars that's one thing. If it was by bamboozling the American public and corrupting politicians (even if done right at the edge of what's legal) so as to be able to hoover up a huge percentage of our tax dollars while actually providing little or no goods or services, that is another thing entirely.

[LongBlade]

But why shouldn't wealth be redistributed?  Is it right that it be so highly concentrated when the impacts of it are clear?

I personally find it morally wrong to take something from someone else simply because you don't have it and you want it.

That isn't to say we shouldn't take care of the poorest amongst us - somehow. But that is to say that just because you have a Jeep Willies and I don't, I should get yours? No way.

[Keunert]

but should you be allowed to employ workers with a wage that will not support their families? like working for McDonalds full time and needing food stamps paid by the public?

my father had a rather short education, worked hard and made more than enough money. that is how it should be: if you work hard and want something hard enough there are ways to achieve it. i have the feeling that this mechanism is getting rare. and if you feel like whatever you try will make no difference we will have a society that has a huge problem. and i do think we are currently driving in exactly that direction.

[Windigo]

But why shouldn't wealth be redistributed?  Is it right that it be so highly concentrated when the impacts of it are clear?

I personally find it morally wrong to take something from someone else simply because you don't have it and you want it.

That isn't to say we shouldn't take care of the poorest amongst us - somehow. But that is to say that just because you have a Jeep Willies and I don't, I should get yours? No way.

See I agree... I am arguing on the extreme end of it. IMO, inheriting billions of dollars is tantamount to a monarchy, following a blood line. Undeserved

The lose end of course are companies that are privately owned that never die....

[Greybriar]

I think there is something terribly wrong when the top 1% (the wealthiest) of the population in this country own 50% of all the stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

[Steelgrave]

I don't want to take anything from someone else. But I do want an America where hard work still = opportunity. We're losing that. I think it's telling that the video reflects how most Americans think the wealth is distributed and how it should be distributed....it's not a flat line, it shows a large disparity between the two ends of the spectrum where the poor aren't destitute and the rich enjoy their wealth, with a healthy middle class in the middle. We Americans are ok with that. We want the same opportunity to improve our lives that our father's had and we definitely want to leave that for our children. America has always had robber barons who strong armed their way to riches as well as smart entrepreneurs who had a better idea and created wealth from it while bettering our society. That's nothing new. But now the shrinking middle class not only has less opportunity for our children (and for older guys like me as well), but the middle class also carries most of the debt burden in this country.

I've never believed in wealth redistribution in my life and don't now....but the transfer of so much of this countries wealth into fewer and fewer pockets has to be a concern. Not to mention how it threatens our democracy. What is your vote and my vote worth to a political system fueled by levels of cash never seen before? We have to change the rules somehow while we still matter at all. I hate how the left defines "fairness", but our current system is robbing our children of a future and saddling them with debt all while the government grows ever and ever larger and becomes more and more beholden to the few at the top.....or caters to the poorest among us with promises that really change nothing.

It's not fair. America has long been fueled by the knowledge that we could improve ourselves regardless of birth. That's being taken from us, not even so much by the 1% as by the enablers who sack the middle class for the benefit of both ends.

[LongBlade]

but should you be allowed to employ workers with a wage that will not support their families? like working for McDonalds full time and needing food stamps paid by the public?

The market determines the wage for unskilled work.

If you raise the minimum wage above market rates then you'll start taking jobs away from people who want them.

[LongBlade]

I don't want to take anything from someone else. But I do want an America where hard work still = opportunity. We're losing that.

That's why I posted the political cartoon.

Obamacare is a law that guarantees that many people won't be employed more than 29 hours per week at the same company. Instead of allowing an employee to work full-time for a company they are now forced to work two-part time jobs - if they can get them.

Ensuring that the laws allow for growth and opportunity is the best way to achieve economic prosperity and expansion. I agree we're currently on the wrong path to doing that.

I disagree that we should redistribute wealth arbitrarily simply because someone is not capable of creating something that would make them the next Bill Gates. Don't like the way you're making money? Do something about it: get more education, better skills, start a business.

But do not take money from someone more successful simply because they have more than you. That is theft.

[Keunert]

 [/quote]

The market determines the wage for unskilled work.

If you raise the minimum wage above market rates then you'll start taking jobs away from people who want them.
[/quote]

The market does a lot of stuff i do not agree with. if the market decides unskilled work should not pay enough to get a living it forces the public to pay part of the wage. you are ok with that? i'd rather pay the true cost of a burger than pay true costs via taxes.