Redistribution of Wealth
Redistribution of Wealth
I wonder if those that believe in Redistribution of Wealth via a "lets tax the rich more" would think that Redistribution of Ambition and Motivation would be a good idea?
Redistribution of Wealth
May I assume from the post that you feel Ambition and Motivation should be rewarded through society's tax policy with wealth? Or is that not a legitimate linkage of ideas?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Redistribution of Wealth
spot;976988 wrote: May I assume from the post that you feel Ambition and Motivation should be rewarded through society's tax policy with wealth? Or is that not a legitimate linkage of ideas?
Not necessarily. I do not feel comfortable with the idea that some people of lesser ambition and motivation should rewarded the same as those with high ambition and motivation.
Not necessarily. I do not feel comfortable with the idea that some people of lesser ambition and motivation should rewarded the same as those with high ambition and motivation.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977001 wrote: I do not feel comfortable with the idea that some people of lesser ambition and motivation should rewarded the same as those with high ambition and motivation.So you'd penally tax estate duties, for example, to prevent Junior from living a life of luxury on the back of his parents' fortune?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977001 wrote: Not necessarily. I do not feel comfortable with the idea that some people of lesser ambition and motivation should rewarded the same as those with high ambition and motivation.
I agree with that!
I agree with that!
Redistribution of Wealth
spot;977007 wrote: So you'd penally tax estate duties, for example, to prevent Junior from living a life of luxury on the back of his parents' fortune?
One cannot assume that just because wealth is inherited the individual would be lacking in ambition and motivation. Such does not appear to be the case. While there are certainly instances of inherited wealth being squandered and the recipients near do wells, the more likely situation is that the off spring of the wealthy become better educated, associate with achievers and by this association tend to mirror their parents accomplishments, certainly better than the child born to a forth generation welfare recipient that has dropped out of high school in the 9th grade and is currently going through drug rehab.
One cannot assume that just because wealth is inherited the individual would be lacking in ambition and motivation. Such does not appear to be the case. While there are certainly instances of inherited wealth being squandered and the recipients near do wells, the more likely situation is that the off spring of the wealthy become better educated, associate with achievers and by this association tend to mirror their parents accomplishments, certainly better than the child born to a forth generation welfare recipient that has dropped out of high school in the 9th grade and is currently going through drug rehab.
Redistribution of Wealth
I refer you to The Great Gatsby for precedent. What you're describing under better educated and association is the language of privilege, not the language of reward for Ambition and Motivation.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Redistribution of Wealth
spot;977052 wrote: I refer you to The Great Gatsby for precedent. What you're describing under better educated and association is the language of privilege, not the language of reward for Ambition and Motivation.
One can have all the ambition and motivation in the world but is ultimately rewarded for the results of that ambition and motivation not the hope of accomplishment
One can have all the ambition and motivation in the world but is ultimately rewarded for the results of that ambition and motivation not the hope of accomplishment
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977059 wrote: One can have all the ambition and motivation in the world but is ultimately rewarded for the results of that ambition and motivation not the hope of accomplishment
Or one can be born into a wealthy family, the end result's the same unless society socially engineers its taxation policy.
Or one can be born into a wealthy family, the end result's the same unless society socially engineers its taxation policy.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Redistribution of Wealth
spot;977067 wrote: Or one can be born into a wealthy family, the end result's the same unless society socially engineers its taxation policy.
I have no problem with taxation, it's the means with which to pay for certain governmental services. How those taxes are applied and what governmental services are to be provided is of concern to me.
I have no problem with taxation, it's the means with which to pay for certain governmental services. How those taxes are applied and what governmental services are to be provided is of concern to me.
Redistribution of Wealth
Precisely so, we're in full agreement.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Redistribution of Wealth
Question.
Are all people with solid work ethic, motivation and ambition rewarded proportionate to their contribution ?
Are all people with solid work ethic, motivation and ambition rewarded proportionate to their contribution ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
Redistribution of Wealth
Nomad;977426 wrote: Question.
Are all people with solid work ethic, motivation and ambition rewarded proportionate to their contribution ?
Of course not, but they are rewarded with results, whereas the not so ambitious and non motivated have no results.
Are all people with solid work ethic, motivation and ambition rewarded proportionate to their contribution ?
Of course not, but they are rewarded with results, whereas the not so ambitious and non motivated have no results.
Redistribution of Wealth
The redistribution tax form I fill out for our government is very simple.
It says:
1. How much taxable income did you make last year?
2. How much did you spend?
3. How much do you have left?
4. Send it to us! :wah:
It says:
1. How much taxable income did you make last year?
2. How much did you spend?
3. How much do you have left?
4. Send it to us! :wah:
Cars 
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977043 wrote: One cannot assume that just because wealth is inherited the individual would be lacking in ambition and motivation. Such does not appear to be the case. While there are certainly instances of inherited wealth being squandered and the recipients near do wells, the more likely situation is that the off spring of the wealthy become better educated, associate with achievers and by this association tend to mirror their parents accomplishments, certainly better than the child born to a forth generation welfare recipient that has dropped out of high school in the 9th grade and is currently going through drug rehab.
Paris Hilton being a prime example I suppose.
If the next generation have the ambition and motivation then presumably they don't need to inherit because, by then, they'd have made it for themselves.
Paris Hilton being a prime example I suppose.
If the next generation have the ambition and motivation then presumably they don't need to inherit because, by then, they'd have made it for themselves.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977106 wrote: I have no problem with taxation, it's the means with which to pay for certain governmental services. How those taxes are applied and what governmental services are to be provided is of concern to me.
Might I introduce you to Accountable - I believe that he has some ideas on that subject.
Might I introduce you to Accountable - I believe that he has some ideas on that subject.
Redistribution of Wealth
Nomad;977426 wrote: Question.
Are all people with solid work ethic, motivation and ambition rewarded proportionate to their contribution ?
No.
It has often been said that to make the rich work harder you pay them more, to make the poor work harder you pay them less - sadly, it has been true too often to be a joke.
Are all people with solid work ethic, motivation and ambition rewarded proportionate to their contribution ?
No.
It has often been said that to make the rich work harder you pay them more, to make the poor work harder you pay them less - sadly, it has been true too often to be a joke.
Redistribution of Wealth
Bryn Mawr;977521 wrote: Paris Hilton being a prime example I suppose.
If the next generation have the ambition and motivation then presumably they don't need to inherit because, by then, they'd have made it for themselves.
Paris Hilton is not a prime example, she is the exception. Don't make the assumption that inherited wealth is a bad idea by citing exceptions. The exceptions will always make the news. There are far more that have inherited wealth and gone on to use the wealth wisely to enrich others lives as well as their own. If the same wealth was given to a government via tax do you really think it would be spent wisely and every bit used to enrich others or could it just possibly be squandered and mismanaged with governmental boondogle schemes.
If the next generation have the ambition and motivation then presumably they don't need to inherit because, by then, they'd have made it for themselves.
Paris Hilton is not a prime example, she is the exception. Don't make the assumption that inherited wealth is a bad idea by citing exceptions. The exceptions will always make the news. There are far more that have inherited wealth and gone on to use the wealth wisely to enrich others lives as well as their own. If the same wealth was given to a government via tax do you really think it would be spent wisely and every bit used to enrich others or could it just possibly be squandered and mismanaged with governmental boondogle schemes.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977555 wrote: Paris Hilton is not a prime example, she is the exception. Don't make the assumption that inherited wealth is a bad idea by citing exceptions. The exceptions will always make the news. There are far more that have inherited wealth and gone on to use the wealth wisely to enrich others lives as well as their own. If the same wealth was given to a government via tax do you really think it would be spent wisely and every bit used to enrich others or could it just possibly be squandered and mismanaged with governmental boondogle schemes.
Instead of picking up on the jokey bit it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the point of the post :-
If the next generation have the ambition and motivation then presumably they don't need to inherit because, by then, they'd have made it for themselves.
Instead of picking up on the jokey bit it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the point of the post :-
If the next generation have the ambition and motivation then presumably they don't need to inherit because, by then, they'd have made it for themselves.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977471 wrote: Of course not, but they are rewarded with results, whereas the not so ambitious and non motivated have no results.
Ok because I thought you might be implying a person of average income isnt working hard or diligently.
Of course there should be no redistribution of wealth.
You earn it you keep it.
Flat Tax !
Ok because I thought you might be implying a person of average income isnt working hard or diligently.
Of course there should be no redistribution of wealth.
You earn it you keep it.
Flat Tax !
I AM AWESOME MAN
Redistribution of Wealth
Bryn Mawr;977539 wrote: No.
It has often been said that to make the rich work harder you pay them more, to make the poor work harder you pay them less - sadly, it has been true too often to be a joke.
Ive not heard this before. Interesting analogy.
It has often been said that to make the rich work harder you pay them more, to make the poor work harder you pay them less - sadly, it has been true too often to be a joke.
Ive not heard this before. Interesting analogy.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Redistribution of Wealth
Bryn Mawr;977568 wrote: Instead of picking up on the jokey bit it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the point of the post :-
I thought the point of the post was pretty obvious. I oppose Federal Estate Taxes that are levied on a deceased's estate and the wealth supposedly re-distributed for the benefit of others. Firstly, the wealth has already been taxed several times via income tax, state taxes, capital gains taxes, sales taxes etc. What's left for heirs has already gone through a plethora of taxes. Secondly, the inherited wealth stays in the private sector economic pot to pay salaries, commissions, and go directly to charities via the heirs direction (not the government). I have more confidence in private sector re-distribution than governmental re-distribution of wealth.
I thought the point of the post was pretty obvious. I oppose Federal Estate Taxes that are levied on a deceased's estate and the wealth supposedly re-distributed for the benefit of others. Firstly, the wealth has already been taxed several times via income tax, state taxes, capital gains taxes, sales taxes etc. What's left for heirs has already gone through a plethora of taxes. Secondly, the inherited wealth stays in the private sector economic pot to pay salaries, commissions, and go directly to charities via the heirs direction (not the government). I have more confidence in private sector re-distribution than governmental re-distribution of wealth.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977614 wrote: I thought the point of the post was pretty obvious. I oppose Federal Estate Taxes that are levied on a deceased's estate and the wealth supposedly re-distributed for the benefit of others. Firstly, the wealth has already been taxed several times via income tax, state taxes, capital gains taxes, sales taxes etc. What's left for heirs has already gone through a plethora of taxes. Secondly, the inherited wealth stays in the private sector economic pot to pay salaries, commissions, and go directly to charities via the heirs direction (not the government). I have more confidence in private sector re-distribution than governmental re-distribution of wealth.
In the case of the inheritor it is unearned income same as any other. If income is to be taxed why make an exception?
In the case of the inheritor it is unearned income same as any other. If income is to be taxed why make an exception?
Redistribution of Wealth
I don't think that folks should work all their lives to leave something for their kids and have it taxed away to benefit the kids of someone who couldn't be bothered to look to their future..
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Redistribution of Wealth
flopstock;977695 wrote: I don't think that folks should work all their lives to leave something for their kids and have it taxed away to benefit the kids of someone who couldn't be bothered to look to their future..
Lookit you! Were meant to be making Lon work for his point here - not making it easy for him :wah:
Lookit you! Were meant to be making Lon work for his point here - not making it easy for him :wah:
Redistribution of Wealth
Bryn Mawr;977659 wrote: In the case of the inheritor it is unearned income same as any other. If income is to be taxed why make an exception?
By that logic then, if I give you 1,000 pounds it should be taxed? Is that what you are saying?
By that logic then, if I give you 1,000 pounds it should be taxed? Is that what you are saying?
Redistribution of Wealth
flopstock;977695 wrote: I don't think that folks should work all their lives to leave something for their kids and have it taxed away to benefit the kids of someone who couldn't be bothered to look to their future..
Oh really Miss Prickly ?
Is that what were thinking these days ?
Oh really Miss Prickly ?
Is that what were thinking these days ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977734 wrote: By that logic then, if I give you 1,000 pounds it should be taxed? Is that what you are saying?
If you gave me £10,000 it would be taxed. I forget the cut-off, it's about £7,000 / year - for inheritance tax it's about £280,000
If you gave me £10,000 it would be taxed. I forget the cut-off, it's about £7,000 / year - for inheritance tax it's about £280,000
Redistribution of Wealth
Bryn Mawr;977761 wrote: If you gave me £10,000 it would be taxed. I forget the cut-off, it's about £7,000 / year - for inheritance tax it's about £280,000
If I hand you a envelope with heaps of cash-------who will know, that's what I am talking about.
If I hand you a envelope with heaps of cash-------who will know, that's what I am talking about.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977778 wrote: If I hand you a envelope with heaps of cash-------who will know, that's what I am talking about.
Are you suggesting that I should engage in tax evasion?
Are you suggesting that I should engage in tax evasion?
Redistribution of Wealth
Bryn Mawr;977789 wrote: Are you suggesting that I should engage in tax evasion?
Certainly not, but tax avoidance is a different matter.
Certainly not, but tax avoidance is a different matter.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977043 wrote: One cannot assume that just because wealth is inherited the individual would be lacking in ambition and motivation.
I like "One cannot assume that just because poverty is inherited the individual wouldn't be lacking in ambition and motivation"...
The difference being one is rewarded, the other oppressed...
I like "One cannot assume that just because poverty is inherited the individual wouldn't be lacking in ambition and motivation"...
The difference being one is rewarded, the other oppressed...
Redistribution of Wealth
Would it be so drastically imprudent to think that taxing the rich more at least by a standard of percentages relative to their wealth as opposed to the cynical thought that "taxing the rich more" completely strips their shirts off of their backs and gives them to the poor is a viable solution for equality?...
Surely those of you who feel taxing the "rich"(To whom I feel are the most unethical beings on this planet I might add!) is wrong have to agree that the money sitting in banks making their owner even more the rich by virtue of "Home loans", etc...,etc...(From which is nothing more than selling money for more money in return - *hint *hint -- Hehe...) could go to help starving people to whom need it.
Surely those of you who feel taxing the "rich"(To whom I feel are the most unethical beings on this planet I might add!) is wrong have to agree that the money sitting in banks making their owner even more the rich by virtue of "Home loans", etc...,etc...(From which is nothing more than selling money for more money in return - *hint *hint -- Hehe...) could go to help starving people to whom need it.
Redistribution of Wealth
K.Snyder;977847 wrote: I like "One cannot assume that just because poverty is inherited the individual wouldn't be lacking in ambition and motivation"...
The difference being one is rewarded, the other oppressed...
Inheritance is not a reward nor is poverty oppression.
The difference being one is rewarded, the other oppressed...
Inheritance is not a reward nor is poverty oppression.
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977043 wrote: One cannot assume that just because wealth is inherited the individual would be lacking in ambition and motivation. Such does not appear to be the case. While there are certainly instances of inherited wealth being squandered and the recipients near do wells, the more likely situation is that the off spring of the wealthy become better educated, associate with achievers and by this association tend to mirror their parents accomplishments, certainly better than the child born to a forth generation welfare recipient that has dropped out of high school in the 9th grade and is currently going through drug rehab.
Well said Lon. Well said.
Well said Lon. Well said.
-
double helix
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm
Redistribution of Wealth
K.Snyder;977847 wrote: I like "One cannot assume that just because poverty is inherited the individual wouldn't be lacking in ambition and motivation"...
The difference being one is rewarded, the other oppressed... And yet, the inner city story tells us differently doesn't it. Poverty and welfare ultimatly begit more poverty and more welfare.
The difference being one is rewarded, the other oppressed... And yet, the inner city story tells us differently doesn't it. Poverty and welfare ultimatly begit more poverty and more welfare.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977895 wrote: Inheritance is not a reward nor is poverty oppression.
I disagree with the exception of effort...Wealth is by far not dictated by effort...There are many who are rich because they'd worked for it but the wealth behind their work is much more superficial than work that is worth the term "rich", from which is only defined by poverty...
I disagree with the exception of effort...Wealth is by far not dictated by effort...There are many who are rich because they'd worked for it but the wealth behind their work is much more superficial than work that is worth the term "rich", from which is only defined by poverty...
Redistribution of Wealth
double helix;977914 wrote: And yet, the inner city story tells us differently doesn't it. Poverty and welfare ultimatly begit more poverty and more welfare.
That's certainly true, however the past 35 years have shown that throwing money at the problem has not changed a thing. The answer I believe is in education and parents encouraging their offspring to meet their individual potential even though they themselves have not. A difficult task but not impossible. The real answer lies within the family unit not from external sources.
That's certainly true, however the past 35 years have shown that throwing money at the problem has not changed a thing. The answer I believe is in education and parents encouraging their offspring to meet their individual potential even though they themselves have not. A difficult task but not impossible. The real answer lies within the family unit not from external sources.
Redistribution of Wealth
K.Snyder;977918 wrote: I disagree with the exception of effort...Wealth is by far not dictated by effort...There are many who are rich because they'd worked for it but the wealth behind their work is much more superficial than work that is worth the term "rich", from which is only defined by poverty...
Not sure I follow what you are saying K.S.--------I must be a little thick.
Not sure I follow what you are saying K.S.--------I must be a little thick.
Redistribution of Wealth
double helix;977914 wrote: And yet, the inner city story tells us differently doesn't it. Poverty and welfare ultimatly begit more poverty and more welfare.
Yes that's what happens when the rich keeps bogarting all of the profits backed by capitalist law by virtue of outrages real estate prices(From which land should never cost anything) and inflation whilst all to whom's saved up their money to get out of the seventh circle of hell has to dive into that saving because gasoline has jumped to $140 from which virtually drives every necessity known to man up all the hwile the rich keep a number in their bank account only to die giving it to their rich snotty as sons to whom pi** it away by having Lobster flown out to them every day because the Filet mignon made them appear less intimidating...
Get real...
Thanks for making my point.
Yes that's what happens when the rich keeps bogarting all of the profits backed by capitalist law by virtue of outrages real estate prices(From which land should never cost anything) and inflation whilst all to whom's saved up their money to get out of the seventh circle of hell has to dive into that saving because gasoline has jumped to $140 from which virtually drives every necessity known to man up all the hwile the rich keep a number in their bank account only to die giving it to their rich snotty as sons to whom pi** it away by having Lobster flown out to them every day because the Filet mignon made them appear less intimidating...
Get real...
Thanks for making my point.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977936 wrote: Not sure I follow what you are saying K.S.--------I must be a little thick.
I'm saying all to whom are "rich" only actually deserves enough of the money they've sustained in direct accordance to worldly wealth averages...Until the goal of 0% poverty is reached there will be days "rich" is lacking of merit...
A person with 66 billion dollars with any number above a 0% poverty rate has not earned nor deserves all of that money until that number above the 0% poverty rate hits 0%
A person with 66 billion dollars then and only then deserves all of that money the day there is 0% poverty -- Then they've earned all of it...Not to be confused with the fact that all earn the set percentage of money they've worked for in direct correlation to the worldly "money" average...
I'm saying all to whom are "rich" only actually deserves enough of the money they've sustained in direct accordance to worldly wealth averages...Until the goal of 0% poverty is reached there will be days "rich" is lacking of merit...
A person with 66 billion dollars with any number above a 0% poverty rate has not earned nor deserves all of that money until that number above the 0% poverty rate hits 0%
A person with 66 billion dollars then and only then deserves all of that money the day there is 0% poverty -- Then they've earned all of it...Not to be confused with the fact that all earn the set percentage of money they've worked for in direct correlation to the worldly "money" average...
Redistribution of Wealth
K.Snyder;977942 wrote: A person with 66 billion dollars with any number above a 0% poverty rate has not earned nor deserves all of that money until that number above the 0% poverty rate hits 0%
* -- The money they do deserve from this is that in which is 100% all of their revenue after the worldly poverty rate is fixated at 0% respectively and is subject to mitigation on average by all to whom would hypothetically be above the worldly average of income.
* -- The money they do deserve from this is that in which is 100% all of their revenue after the worldly poverty rate is fixated at 0% respectively and is subject to mitigation on average by all to whom would hypothetically be above the worldly average of income.
Redistribution of Wealth
K.Snyder;977851 wrote: Would it be so drastically imprudent to think that taxing the rich more at least by a standard of percentages relative to their wealth as opposed to the cynical thought that "taxing the rich more" completely strips their shirts off of their backs and gives them to the poor is a viable solution for equality?...
Surely those of you who feel taxing the "rich"(To whom I feel are the most unethical beings on this planet I might add!) is wrong have to agree that the money sitting in banks making their owner even more the rich by virtue of "Home loans", etc...,etc...(From which is nothing more than selling money for more money in return - *hint *hint -- Hehe...) could go to help starving people to whom need it.
If you are saying that by taxing the RICH at a heavier rate that the government can do a better job of re-distributing it where they deem it is needed, rather, than in the case of a Bill Gates creating foundations that distribute enormous sums of his wealth in a mucjh more efficient manner than a government agency, I totally disagree. Just look at our postal system. Gates is one of many rich that voluntarily distribute large amounts of their wealth. As for the unethical rich, I guess we have to chalk up the welfare recipient that is caught stealing ciggs from K Mart as a victim of oppression eh?
Surely those of you who feel taxing the "rich"(To whom I feel are the most unethical beings on this planet I might add!) is wrong have to agree that the money sitting in banks making their owner even more the rich by virtue of "Home loans", etc...,etc...(From which is nothing more than selling money for more money in return - *hint *hint -- Hehe...) could go to help starving people to whom need it.
If you are saying that by taxing the RICH at a heavier rate that the government can do a better job of re-distributing it where they deem it is needed, rather, than in the case of a Bill Gates creating foundations that distribute enormous sums of his wealth in a mucjh more efficient manner than a government agency, I totally disagree. Just look at our postal system. Gates is one of many rich that voluntarily distribute large amounts of their wealth. As for the unethical rich, I guess we have to chalk up the welfare recipient that is caught stealing ciggs from K Mart as a victim of oppression eh?
Redistribution of Wealth
K.Snyder;977942 wrote: I'm saying all to whom are "rich" only actually deserves enough of the money they've sustained in direct accordance to worldly wealth averages...Until the goal of 0% poverty is reached there will be days "rich" is lacking of merit...
A person with 66 billion dollars with any number above a 0% poverty rate has not earned nor deserves all of that money until that number above the 0% poverty rate hits 0%
A person with 66 billion dollars then and only then deserves all of that money the day there is 0% poverty -- Then they've earned all of it...Not to be confused with the fact that all earn the set percentage of money they've worked for in direct correlation to the worldly "money" average...
Ah-------and how many jelly beans would you allow me to have, how many bottles of wine, cars, boats, homes, bank accounts. Don't get hung up on the money thing, don't assume that the 66 billion dollars is sitting idle. That damn money is working, it's employing people, it's paying salaries, it's money at work. ECON 101
A person with 66 billion dollars with any number above a 0% poverty rate has not earned nor deserves all of that money until that number above the 0% poverty rate hits 0%
A person with 66 billion dollars then and only then deserves all of that money the day there is 0% poverty -- Then they've earned all of it...Not to be confused with the fact that all earn the set percentage of money they've worked for in direct correlation to the worldly "money" average...
Ah-------and how many jelly beans would you allow me to have, how many bottles of wine, cars, boats, homes, bank accounts. Don't get hung up on the money thing, don't assume that the 66 billion dollars is sitting idle. That damn money is working, it's employing people, it's paying salaries, it's money at work. ECON 101
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977950 wrote: As for the unethical rich, I guess we have to chalk up the welfare recipient that is caught stealing ciggs from K Mart as a victim of oppression eh?
No Lon...I hadn't at any point suggested that a thief were ethical...
I personally feel that welfare helps to create mediocrity upon ambition but none the less I'll speak subjectively...
If someone to whom were poor had stolen an apple because they truthfully needed it and they'd exploited all other options at the same time the person to whom owned the apple could afford to lose it then that what alot of people like to call "theft" becomes justified...Obviously anyone to whom stole a luxurious item without the intent on selling it to sustain a healthy a living condition not otherwise prevalent then that is unethical as well, poor or not...
How does stealing an apple from those to whom does not need it to sustain a healthy living condition not become justified?...
No Lon...I hadn't at any point suggested that a thief were ethical...
I personally feel that welfare helps to create mediocrity upon ambition but none the less I'll speak subjectively...
If someone to whom were poor had stolen an apple because they truthfully needed it and they'd exploited all other options at the same time the person to whom owned the apple could afford to lose it then that what alot of people like to call "theft" becomes justified...Obviously anyone to whom stole a luxurious item without the intent on selling it to sustain a healthy a living condition not otherwise prevalent then that is unethical as well, poor or not...
How does stealing an apple from those to whom does not need it to sustain a healthy living condition not become justified?...
Redistribution of Wealth
K.Snyder;977942 wrote: I'm saying all to whom are "rich" only actually deserves enough of the money they've sustained in direct accordance to worldly wealth averages...Until the goal of 0% poverty is reached there will be days "rich" is lacking of merit...
A person with 66 billion dollars with any number above a 0% poverty rate has not earned nor deserves all of that money until that number above the 0% poverty rate hits 0%
A person with 66 billion dollars then and only then deserves all of that money the day there is 0% poverty -- Then they've earned all of it...Not to be confused with the fact that all earn the set percentage of money they've worked for in direct correlation to the worldly "money" average...
Worldly Wealth Averages??? Gimme a break-------how about Worldly Intelligence Average, Athletic Ability Averages--------hell, let's just smooth out the playing field and make everyone JUST AVERGAE.
A person with 66 billion dollars with any number above a 0% poverty rate has not earned nor deserves all of that money until that number above the 0% poverty rate hits 0%
A person with 66 billion dollars then and only then deserves all of that money the day there is 0% poverty -- Then they've earned all of it...Not to be confused with the fact that all earn the set percentage of money they've worked for in direct correlation to the worldly "money" average...
Worldly Wealth Averages??? Gimme a break-------how about Worldly Intelligence Average, Athletic Ability Averages--------hell, let's just smooth out the playing field and make everyone JUST AVERGAE.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977959 wrote: Ah-------and how many jelly beans would you allow me to have, how many bottles of wine, cars, boats, homes, bank accounts. Don't get hung up on the money thing, don't assume that the 66 billion dollars is sitting idle. That damn money is working, it's employing people, it's paying salaries, it's money at work. ECON 101
If that money were working to help benefit others to it's utmost potential by virtue of divination then that wouldn't be called "rich"...It's called "worth"...
Big difference between "worth" and "rich"..."Rich" means more than one needs to sustain a healthy lifestyle...--And before you start thinking of communist ordeal I do believe in luxury and it's importance in being happy...
It's more so completely socialist with pure capitalist entity after true equality...
If that money were working to help benefit others to it's utmost potential by virtue of divination then that wouldn't be called "rich"...It's called "worth"...
Big difference between "worth" and "rich"..."Rich" means more than one needs to sustain a healthy lifestyle...--And before you start thinking of communist ordeal I do believe in luxury and it's importance in being happy...
It's more so completely socialist with pure capitalist entity after true equality...
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977962 wrote: Worldly Wealth Averages??? Gimme a break-------how about Worldly Intelligence Average, Athletic Ability Averages--------hell, let's just smooth out the playing field and make everyone JUST AVERGAE.
:yh_bigsmi..."make everyone JUST AVERGAE." is not possible...It's a completely and utterly impossibility of nomenclature and realistic preset...
If everyone were "JUST AVERGAE." then that would mean everyone were the same which would ultimately make no one else more or less better...
All would be "wealthy"...You've found the key to prosperity...
:yh_bigsmi..."make everyone JUST AVERGAE." is not possible...It's a completely and utterly impossibility of nomenclature and realistic preset...
If everyone were "JUST AVERGAE." then that would mean everyone were the same which would ultimately make no one else more or less better...
All would be "wealthy"...You've found the key to prosperity...
Redistribution of Wealth
K.Snyder;977967 wrote: :yh_bigsmi..."make everyone JUST AVERGAE." is not possible...It's a completely and utterly impossibility of nomenclature and realistic preset...
If everyone were "JUST AVERGAE." then that would mean everyone were the same which would ultimately make no one else more or less better...
All would be "wealthy"...You've found the key to prosperity...
Our Differences
You apparently have a problem with the super rich and feel that if they inherited much of their wealth it is undeserved and that there should be a cap on the amount of wealth one should have or be able to leave to ones heirs. Is that a fair statement of your position?
I on the other hand do not have a problem with any sum of accumulated money an individual has or may receive by inheritance. I feel that for the most part these enormous sums of money are put to better use by the individual than by any government.
If I have stated your position correctly let's end the discussion and agree to disagree as neither of us will change the others mind. That's what makes the world go round.
If everyone were "JUST AVERGAE." then that would mean everyone were the same which would ultimately make no one else more or less better...
All would be "wealthy"...You've found the key to prosperity...
Our Differences
You apparently have a problem with the super rich and feel that if they inherited much of their wealth it is undeserved and that there should be a cap on the amount of wealth one should have or be able to leave to ones heirs. Is that a fair statement of your position?
I on the other hand do not have a problem with any sum of accumulated money an individual has or may receive by inheritance. I feel that for the most part these enormous sums of money are put to better use by the individual than by any government.
If I have stated your position correctly let's end the discussion and agree to disagree as neither of us will change the others mind. That's what makes the world go round.
Redistribution of Wealth
Lon;977974 wrote: Our Differences
You apparently have a problem with the super rich and feel that if they inherited much of their wealth it is undeserved and that there should be a cap on the amount of wealth one should have or be able to leave to ones heirs. Is that a fair statement of your position?
I on the other hand do not have a problem with any sum of accumulated money an individual has or may receive by inheritance. I feel that for the most part these enormous sums of money are put to better use by the individual than by any government.
If I have stated your position correctly let's end the discussion and agree to disagree as neither of us will change the others mind. That's what makes the world go round.
You have that right except your missing about half of it...
I have a problem with people being rich upon any way they've received it because I feel the worth of a dollar is not limitless...I feel that each job should have a set amount one is allowed to make and upon a 0% poverty rate being achieved then and only then do I feel allowing a peoples to make "riches" above necessity...
Obviously inheritance in this system would be non existent...
The system would consist of businesses being exempt of revenue sharing by virtue of merit...That's to say that a business to whom has invested in another business venture from which is benefiting the cause to achieve a 0% poverty rate would only be subject to the shared revenue sanction in retrospect to all of said businesses' entities...
And as I've said the point above the 0% poverty rate would see all businesses keep their profits without being sanctioned above said achievement...
You apparently have a problem with the super rich and feel that if they inherited much of their wealth it is undeserved and that there should be a cap on the amount of wealth one should have or be able to leave to ones heirs. Is that a fair statement of your position?
I on the other hand do not have a problem with any sum of accumulated money an individual has or may receive by inheritance. I feel that for the most part these enormous sums of money are put to better use by the individual than by any government.
If I have stated your position correctly let's end the discussion and agree to disagree as neither of us will change the others mind. That's what makes the world go round.
You have that right except your missing about half of it...
I have a problem with people being rich upon any way they've received it because I feel the worth of a dollar is not limitless...I feel that each job should have a set amount one is allowed to make and upon a 0% poverty rate being achieved then and only then do I feel allowing a peoples to make "riches" above necessity...
Obviously inheritance in this system would be non existent...
The system would consist of businesses being exempt of revenue sharing by virtue of merit...That's to say that a business to whom has invested in another business venture from which is benefiting the cause to achieve a 0% poverty rate would only be subject to the shared revenue sanction in retrospect to all of said businesses' entities...
And as I've said the point above the 0% poverty rate would see all businesses keep their profits without being sanctioned above said achievement...