Question: Do you believe in wealth redistribution?

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2397932

Gee,I wonder how this will turn out?

Taverner  (1000+ posts)        Tue Nov-29-11 12:14 PM
Original message
Poll question: Question: Do you believe in wealth redistribution?
 Granted, today we do have wealth redistribution. It's just going the wrong direction.

But in the traditional sense, from the 1% to the 99% - do you believe in wealth redistribution?
Poll result (21 votes) 
Yes  (19 votes, 90%) Vote
No  (1 votes, 5%) Vote
Other (please elaborate)  (1 votes, 5%) Vote


 

Never would have guessed "Gimme" would be the landslide winner.

HopeHoops  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. It already exists - our wealth is redistributed to the top 1%.

Poor,poor you. 

lumberjack_jeff  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. "redistribution" implies that where it is, is where it's supposed to be.
 The purpose of an economy is to allocate resources in a way which maximizes society's happiness.

The economy is failing in this regard, so intervention is necessary.

The economy distributes resources already, it's simply doing it wrong.
 

Who are you to determine that? 

hedgehog  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to an end game in
 which one player holds all the cards. Even now, the number of millionaires is falling as the ultra, ultra rich gather more and more of the assets in the entire economy. Without some form of redistribution, eventually a few players own everything and the economy stops cold because no one else has the means to purchase goods and services.

begin_within  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. From the rich to the poor, yes.
 

Gimme Gimme

saras  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. NO. Without wealth redistribution, there would be no wealthy people
 The hardest worker just doesn't work THAT much harder than anyone else. If you're making more than about ten times what someone else is making, you're ripping somebody off somehow, and are in fact redistributing wealth.
 

In other words as always the left wants to criminalize success so as to send them to the gulag.

HopeHoops  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I think each should pay as to their ability.
 That equation is inverted.

 

Taverner  (1000+ posts)        Tue Nov-29-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Agree 100% - From, each, according to their ability
 To each, according to their need

There is an original thought. 

zipplewrath  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
14. Wealth reclaimation
 A tremendous amount of wealth is ultimately gained through access to public assets. That could be as simple as land, or as complicated as the intellectual capacity of the population. No man is an island and no one gets rich in a vacuum. Taxes, minimum wages, labor laws, and other federal efforts to collect or control the wealth in the hands of individuals or other private entities is merely a case of attempting to reclaim, for the public purpose, that portion of wealth that rightfully belongs to the common. 

How does one not utterly despise these useless leeches. 

[jukin]

The theory that those that are smart, work hard, and long should give those that are dumb, lazy, and won't work hard only results in the first group not producing. It always has and it always will. This is just human nature.

[GOBUCKS]

Taverner  (1000+ posts)        Tue Nov-29-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Agree 100% - From, each, according to their ability
To each, according to their need

Taverner needs heroin.

[Aristotelian]

saras  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. NO. Without wealth redistribution, there would be no wealthy people
The hardest worker just doesn't work THAT much harder than anyone else. If you're making more than about ten times what someone else is making, you're ripping somebody off somehow, and are in fact redistributing wealth.

It's not about how hard somebody works, it's about the value of the work which they produce. If the value of my work is fifty times what somebody else produces, and I am paid ten times what he is paid, then he is ripping me off not the other way around.

[thundley4]

saras  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-29-11 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. NO. Without wealth redistribution, there would be no wealthy people
 The hardest worker just doesn't work THAT much harder than anyone else. If you're making more than about ten times what someone else is making, you're ripping somebody off somehow, and are in fact redistributing wealth.

Since there are homeless people making nothing, then everyone with a job or welfare, unemployment are ripping off the homeless.

Hollywood is one of the biggest offenders, imo.  They produce nothing of material value, but make millions for doing so and it is at the expense of the working people that pay outrageous prices to be entertained for 120 minutes.

[USA4ME]

I read these threads and one message comes in loud and clear from the primitives:  "I hate freedom!"

.

[NHSparky]

So if you do nothing and receive welfare as a result, would that be considered NEGATIVE income, since you're doing less than nothing for your compensation?

[shadeaux]

My husband hasn't worked 30 years to give away money to some DUmmy because they demand it.

They can stomp, scream, pitch a fit all they want, they ain't getting what we have.

Maybe they should start at sport stars, porn stars, movie stars, singers.  Let them feed the moonbats.  Most of them are moonbats. If I were a socialist DUmmy, I'd start a writing campaign to my favorite celebrity demanding they cut me a check.  

[BlueStateSaint]

I'm shocked that none of you fellow Cavers has noted this:

MOLE TRAP

Yes, the smart moles will "go with the flow."  But, every now and then, one gets caught.  It would appear that at least one has been caught, if you look at the results.

[FlaGator]

I read these threads and one message comes in loud and clear from the primitives:  "I hate freedom!"

.

I read those same thread and I get another message, "I'm a lazy son of a bitch and because you are capable of working harder than me then you should take care of me."

What they actually believe in is a distribution of wealth without a corresponding distribution of labor.

[USA4ME]

I read those same thread and I get another message, "I'm a lazy son of a bitch and because you are capable of working harder than me then you should take care of me."

What they actually believe in is a distribution of wealth without a corresponding distribution of labor.

I can't argue with putting it that way, either.  We're saying the same thing.

In my reference to primitives hating freedom, real freedom means working and enjoying the fruits of your labor.  To the primitives, you should have the freedom to work so *they* can enjoy the fruits of your labor.  That's why I say they hate what I would consider to be real freedom.

.

[JohnnyReb]

I am wholeheartedly for wealth redistribution.....take all the money from the federal government and redistribute it to it's rightful owners.

[miskie]

I'm shocked that none of you fellow Cavers has noted this:

MOLE TRAP

Yes, the smart moles will "go with the flow."  But, every now and then, one gets caught.  It would appear that at least one has been caught, if you look at the results.

Well, it goes without saying - because all of Skin's polls are mole traps. - Part of my guide to moling the island is to never participate in any poll.

[JohnnyReb]

Well, it goes without saying - because all of Skin's polls are mole traps. - Part of my guide to moling the island is to never participate in any poll.

A pole is a hole for a mole.





Poll, I know but....