ANSWERS: 31
  • No, redistribution of wealth is both wrong and bad for the economy.
  • I don't think so because it would probably just become another welfare program doomed by corruption.
  • Absolutely not, as John the Pryo stated very well. That said this country is one of the most generous this planet has ever seen, both abroad and here at home. Don't give the man a fish but, teach him how to fish so that he may have his own.
  • Well I dont see how that law would fly BUT if I were wealthy I would definitely do my part!!!
  • I think we already cover that with the current taxation and welfare system.
  • nah. it wouldn't fly. what makes a person filthy rich isn't how much money they have so much as what they do with the money. since what they do with their own money is their choice it would be unconstitutional.
  • No law I believe would change a thing, if it were forced onto the rich. But, I also believe that they must amongst themselves, the very rich, come to these conclusions on their own, and offer their own help. As I'll just call it today as I see it, "The Big Picture", one of which has been professed, throughout centuries in this world's existence, of over population, starvation and hunger problems, along with many others, that most of this world inhabitants doesn't want to admit exists. I believe it could change for the better, if they will just let it.
  • i think there should be a law like that because the filthy rich are sometimes too selfish and wouldnt help unless there forced to which i find disgusting
  • No. There are already plenty of opporunities for those that aren't well off (read Adam Shepard's 'Scratch Beginnings'). Also, if people are not rewarded for their work, they won't see any reason to work; and for most, money is the best reward.
  • No I don't think there should.
  • No, no, no. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. from personal experience, I will tell you that it does work, causes laziness and dependence on the wealthy. You create a slave class.
  • There is. Take a look at the tax brackets.
  • Nope. There would then be cause NOT to get TOO rich... or to disburse your assets around via contracts, so no one appears so. And WHO decides what "filthy rich" is?
  • I just think that people who have a very high wage should have to pay a ver small extra tax, which goes to charities direct.
  • Sort of... it's great in theory, but would be open to corruption... there should be a small slice given straight to charities from the very very wealthy (not much, but still on top of tax.) There should also be benefits for giving sums to help the less fortunate.
  • Law? fuck no. If you want income redistribution go live in a communist or socialist country. See how well it works.
  • No because if that were to happen even more people would take too much advantage of it and think "Why work when I can just sit at home and get free money from the hard working people of this country?" that's part of the problem with the welfare system today... instead of people TRYING to find jobs, they are sitting back and doing nothing while we pay for them to sit back and do nothing the entire day, and then pay for their food, and clothing as well... then there are drug dealers, and all around bad guys, that are getting money but don't claim it (because it was gained through illegal means) meaning they have no "income" and then they STILL take advantage of our generous country by STILL living off of foodstamps and welfare... then there are those who have welfare in two different states... take Indiana and Illinois for example... the two state governments don't "talk" to each other and as long as the person sets up residence in both states then they get two different welfare checks, and two different foodstamp cards that get even more money each month... some people make me sick... (I apologize to those of you who genuninly NEED welfare and foodstamps this is not directed at you)
  • The way I understand it many "filthy rich" people already do provide lots for the poor. They usually pay much higher taxes than the middle class. What does the GAO do with any extra moneys? It could go to DHS or any other program that helped the poor or the middle class. I know your complaint--Ive heard it before. I agree there are programs for the poor that need a COLA or a boost to bring the benefits up to date but complainting does not work. Try something different-take an adult class in Economics and run for Office--maybe you can improve a broken system; others have tryed. And are still trying. good day
  • Who you mean by the filthy rich? See: http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php
  • Excuse me..a law..first of all the "filthy rich" as you call them..(and I am not one of them)..are the ones that already provide jobs to millions of americans..secondly..i am all for charity..but no one..and I mean no one should be forced to give anything but their due in taxes...and these poor people...who are they..are they decent law abiding folks that have just fell on hard times..or are they the habitual "poor me types" that have never done a damned thing to improve themselves or society...be careful alot of those dirt poor people would not take money to go to college (because most really poor people choose not to go even though federal and state aid would make it free)..but these same people will take handouts for food and rent..
  • I don't think that it should be a law but it would be nice if everybody (regardless of level of wealth) took it upon themselves to do what they can to help those less fortunate than themselves the world would be a much nicer place.
  • No, the filthy rich don't need laws to do that. They already help the poor via their philanthropy and love of humanity. :)
  • there is. taxes. but they dont go directly to them.
  • While that sounds very generous, that would promote more laziness than welfare and government assistance already does. Do I think filthy rich people SHOULD help starving families? Yes. Should there be a law making them do it? No.
  • Give Obama a couple more years and I won't be surprised that there is such...
  • No. That's their money. They shouldn't be forced to help anybody.
  • Compulsary donations. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. . That's wealth redistribution in sheeps clothes. How about instead, you pass a law saying the unemployed must get a job and get off welfare. Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.
  • I think it should be easier for the rich to share some of it around. As I'd be feeling really guilty if I were filthy rich :)
  • No...MUST????? and they already do!!!! are forced to...so , you STEAL from rich ...i would not want FORCED alms from rich....you act as if the RICH do not HELP OTHERS....you are greedy and selfish and very UNJUST, if that is your thinking attitude.... spread the wealth, well Isay, ACORN, APOLLO and all these others are spreading it quite well....along with the government and the millions of government employees, they have it quite cushy with OUR MONEY....they make a comfy income off us and many unuseful and frivilous and unnecessary JOBS.....
  • No. I feel we should just feed them to starving folks.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy