ANSWERS: 23
  • We take away Donald Trump's millions, we give him 100k to live off of. The rest we divide, 100k to each of us.
  • Yes, in the true Socialist fashion (not those false socialists of history): From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
  • I totally believe in it. I believe those who have the most should help those who have the least. The reason this is an issue is because the "rich" say that the Poor made bad decisions to make themselves poor like drugs, not working, etc. The truth is when you are born into a un wealthy family, no matter how hard you try, you can't pull out of the situation. If a person makes $30,000 a year.how can they afford to buy a house, raise children, go to college at a cost of $50,000 a year and still get ahead without help. they can't. I think those who make the most, should have to give the most.
  • I believe the corporations that rape my wallet on a daily basis should have to pay more in taxes. Why should some jerk-off get 10 million a year for managing a company, when his family could easily live on 1 million a year and 9 million spent on providing health care for people that can't afford it. I don't believe in just giving away money, but I do think we can fund services for people that need help.
  • I don't think that anyone should have to give anything that they don't want to, but I think that people should be encouraged to give as much as they are comfortable giving to charitable causes.
  • I believe redistribution happens naturally when talented people work harder than their peers they earn their pay. There are plenty of lazy and stupid rich people who inherit their money. These will piss it away and those who pull their weight will earn it. Quiet simply money finds its way to those who earn it, unless the government interferes and gives hard earned money to those who haven't earned it.
  • Only if the society is struggling economically. America is, so I support it there. However, a society that works perfectly shouldn't need to redistribute wealth.
  • 'Redistribution of wealth'. What a load of horsesh*t. It's a fancy term for "Hey! He's got more money than we do! Let's TAKE it away from him and spend it ourselves!" It's STEALING, folks! Of COURSE I don't agree with someone else taking MY hard earned income without my consent and giving it to someone else who did nothing to earn it! I busted my *ss to get where I am today. And I don't want to hear how lower income people can't do it. My Dad raised five kids on less than 10,000 dollars a year until the youngest of us graduated in the 80's. And not only do I object to someone else taking my money to give away to other people, I would object to being given someone else's money that I didn't earn! Talk about dishonorable! You want redistribution of wealth? Earn it.
  • Wealth is constantly being redistributed in society. That is what an economy is. I do not believe in evening wealth out equally without merit or risk. People become wealthy for many reasons. Inherited wealth is only for a few. Others take big risks and work hard. They deserve to be rewarded because they will circulate their earnings resulting in jobs and incomes for other people. I believe that from him that much has been given, much is required. If one has been blessed by the bounty of society because of good fortune or the labor of others, there is an increasing level of responsibility to contribute back to the well being of society. That is called being socially responsible and I believe in that too.
  • Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered by a reader of the local newspaper Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application. OR IS IT.........REDISTRIBUTION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S WEALTH IS A GREAT IDEA..............or just a fool's political game !!
  • Does this describe the redistribution of wealth? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." This quote is from Karl Marx the founder of Communism.... I rest my case.
  • There is more to it than you think
  • no, i do not believe in the redistribution of wealth, ie: communism. because if you'll notice, under communism the people are only promised a piece of the pie, it's never really given to them. the only people with the money are the people in power, under redistribution. "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" Lord Acton
  • BAR STOOL ECONOMICS Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so he first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing(100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the 20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something mportant. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
  • I would make the tax laws applicable the the rich and to corporations that never pay their fair share and contribute properly to society.With this redistribution there would be an influx of much needed money into the economy thus lessen the burden on the average citizen.
  • I would make sure that everyone had an equal opportunity for a public education and that employers couldn't discriminate on the basis of race, age, sex, handicap, or sexual orientation. Then I would let everyone compete for the open jobs. They could then do their own redistribution of wealth by doing a good job and working for promotions. : )
  • Charity is about the only form of wealth redistribution that’s acceptable, because it is VOLUNTARY. Wealth redistribution through taxation is theft — and pandering for votes by promising wealth redistribution in the name of “fairness” is bullshit. When every single damn member of Congress comes back to live on Planet Budget (both for their individual families and for the Government as a whole) with the rest of us, then I’ll be willing to listen.
  • Yours or mine?
  • I dont beleive in `Government` redristribution of wealth. Redistribution means someone has got something that should be given to the another. If no one has anything what do we distribute ? nothing ! Why dont we all work hard and support the weak through taxes. However, `natural` redristribution of wealth exists whether we beleive it or not.The dynamics of wealth can not rest intirely on `hard work` nor is `poor` entirely a direct consequnce of laziness. Better to work hard though.
  • In the classic meaning of the term absolutely not. People should only be entitled to the sweat of their brow. I hate what our coutry has become in terms of entitlement programs. The only safety net should be for those who are mentally retarded and mentally ill to the point they cannot function productively in soceity. Anything else should be unemployment insurance paid into the coffers by the worker him or herself. People should be held to the flame of their own irresponsibility. If you work for 30 years and never save a dime then you should be relagated to working until you die.
  • I think people should get what they work for. If a person works at a company for 20 years and gets laid off, of course someone should provide assistant to them. But if a rich person inherets millions from a relative, i don't see how they worked for that money. If i were in power i would go about it like this, you would be taxed based upon your income bracket, the more money you make, the more you pay. Why? Because when a CEO takes a 300 million bonus at his retirement, and that company has to lay off thousands the next year, i don't see how that's fair to employees. I would also heavily tax any outsourcing of jobs. If you want to own a company, you have to run it in the US, unless you want a shit ton of taxes that would make it too inconvenient. I would also redo welfare, so that the government can track every penny of that persons spending. And I would get rid of the foreign worker visa system, when we have people in our own country fighting for jobs, we can't afford to hire anyone outside our country. We have to be able to help ourselves before we can help others.
  • I hate to answer a question with a question, but I have to ask, "for what purpose?" For example, where I live, the residential property taxes that I pay are dedicated entirely to the support of the public schools. I don't have children, and very likely never will. So, in that sense, the property tax that I pay is a redistribution of wealth -- it's taking money from people who don't have children to assist the children of other people. Do I mind? No. Now I think that there are some nutcases out there who believe that anyone who has more in resources than someone else should have to cough up the difference to makes things even out - just because. I definitely do not believe in that. I guess my point is that the "redistribution of wealth" is not itself some sort of civil virtue -- but if redistribution takes place for a particular purpose identified by a democratically elected government then I like it, or don't, depending on the reason. Peg me non-ideological on this one. The redistribution of wealth is neither a justifiable goal in itself, nor is it something to be automatically rejected. It all depends on what the reason is.
  • Absolutely not. Redistribution of wealth is nothing more than theft. If you work and save your money, it should be yours, end of story. If you decide to give it to your kids, that inheritance should be theirs, nobody elses. The second part of the question is how would I do it? I wouldn't, I'd recommend a truely flat tax with everyone paying the same percentage of their income, no loop holes. Some of those assests should be set aside for those who need assistance through no fault of their own, but if they are just lazy and don't want to work, set aside enough money to buy their lazy asses a ticket to a communist country. We don't need them.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy