If you look at most of the successful people throughout the world, liberal or conservative, it is not because they had more money to pursue greater things, but because they had the working ethics and the passion for achieving a certain goal. Many people think that money fixes everything, but in fact, it destroys it if it is not used correctly. Giving a poor man more money doesn't help him, because in most cases, he is poor for the decisions that he constantly made throughout his life. The worst thing you can do for a poor man is give him money.
how did george bush become president of the US? not from his own hard work; he inherited daddy's prestige, wealth, and connections. Most succesful people throughout the world become succesful because the receive a huge head start from daddy (i.e., being accepted to harvard because pops is an alumni, receiving seed money from daddy's connection, etc...). A $50 million trust account isn't the asset that usually thrusts people to the top, it's the other benefits from having succesful parents (like i said before, connections, schools, etc...). The reason people who rise up from the lower middle class to become fabulously wealthy are celebrated is because it is not a common feat.
Oct-27-2008 16:55
George Smiley
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: 9 Bywater Street, Chelsea, London
quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Where did the myth that if you work your ass off you will become rich? Because I know a lot of low income families who work their ass off to barely scrape by, and I do think they could use a tax break and a few social programs like health care, school, etc...
Oh it happened once, I'm sure, and now, that one example has been used by America's rich to convince everyone else that if they allow them to continue stealing the nation's wealth, they too might become rich! What a con and more fool anyone who actually fell for it!
Originally posted by George Smiley
How they should be taxed is equal to their wealth. If they have worked their socks off and become very well off, then they should pay more than those working on minimum wage. It is not called "redistribution" in any other country other than the one trying to convince the electorate that one candidate will turn America into the USSR! It is accepted in most countries as the fairest way to ensure the minimum essential government services you refer to above. The problem in America is that you DON'T have what most would consider the essential minimum services! Poor people in America get substandard health care (if any at all) and substandard levels of education. In my country, everyone is entitled to the same level of health care no matter that their wealth. All education has to adhere to minimum standards and must be available for free. Is Britain a Marxist (or even socialist) country? No. It's one of the most right wing economic countries is Europe!
i agree....my distinction is that wealth re-distribution means people receive a check in the mail from the government, which is funded by higher taxes on the rich. I don't agree with that policy, however, I do agree that people who make more should bear a greater burden of government cost with respect to health care and education. I don't see that as a re-distribution of wealth because the higher burden isn't increasing the wealth of the poor.
Oct-27-2008 17:00
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC
quote:
Originally posted by Kapedano
This clearly shows your ignorance towards the subject of wealth and how you view the system of it.
Solid logic here - your disagreement with my opinion shows clear ignorance.
Originally posted by jerZ07002
i agree....my distinction is that wealth re-distribution means people receive a check in the mail from the government, which is funded by higher taxes on the rich. I don't agree with that policy, however, I do agree that people who make more should bear a greater burden of government cost with respect to health care and education. I don't see that as a re-distribution of wealth because the higher burden isn't increasing the wealth of the poor.
I agree with this. But then again, we're all brother socialists.
___________________
Oct-27-2008 17:05
George Smiley
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: 9 Bywater Street, Chelsea, London
Originally posted by jerZ07002
i agree....my distinction is that wealth re-distribution means people receive a check in the mail from the government, which is funded by higher taxes on the rich. I don't agree with that policy, however, I do agree that people who make more should bear a greater burden of government cost with respect to health care and education. I don't see that as a re-distribution of wealth because the higher burden isn't increasing the wealth of the poor.
No, they won't receive a cheque in the post! All it means is the poorest will pay less tax towards essential services than rich people, who will pay more tax towards them
Oct-27-2008 17:06
Shakka
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2003
Location:
So why do those who believe that accumulated wealth should become not only the responsibility, but the property of the government to dispose of as it sees fit? Why should it by default become the property of the government when they have done nothing to earn it either? It is theft in the name of "fairness" and "equality" but it achieves neither. At the end of the day, your aim is to make sure that someone else doesn't receive something that you yourself want (be it for you or for someone else). You just can't stand that one person might catch a break and therefore you want the government to be an agent of "fairness" to make sure that no one person gets any sort of financial windfall without the government's explicit blessing. I do not believe this is, nor should be, the role of government.
Should birthday presents be banned, or in the very least be confiscated by the government so that they can more "fairly" dispense the goodwill of others as they see fit? Give me a fucking break!
Oct-27-2008 17:08
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Should birthday presents be banned, or in the very least be confiscated by the government so that they can more "fairly" dispense the goodwill of others as they see fit? Give me a fucking break!
No, but perhaps they should be taxed.
___________________
Oct-27-2008 17:11
jerZ07002
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2006
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
So why do those who believe that accumulated wealth should become not only the responsibility, but the property of the government to dispose of as it sees fit? Why should it by default become the property of the government when they have done nothing to earn it either?
someone can spend all of their money before they die or contribute it to a charity of their choice. they have the choice to spend it before they die. when a person allows money to accumulate to such a great extent that is evidence that they have too much. Why should a child of a highly succesful person get a huge trust fund because daddy was succesful?
warren buffet seems to agree that inherited wealth should be taxed extensively.
Oct-27-2008 17:12
George Smiley
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: 9 Bywater Street, Chelsea, London
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
So why do those who believe that accumulated wealth should become not only the responsibility, but the property of the government to dispose of as it sees fit? Why should it by default become the property of the government when they have done nothing to earn it either? It is theft in the name of "fairness" and "equality" but it achieves neither. At the end of the day, your aim is to make sure that someone else doesn't receive something that you yourself want (be it for you or for someone else). You just can't stand that one person might catch a break and therefore you want the government to be an agent of "fairness" to make sure that no one person gets any sort of financial windfall without the government's explicit blessing. I do not believe this is, nor should be, the role of government.
Should birthday presents be banned, or in the very least be confiscated by the government so that they can more "fairly" dispense the goodwill of others as they see fit? Give me a fucking break!
If tax is a proportion of a person's income, then they will always be well off if they have a high paid job/business won't they?
Also, whose supposed to pay for all the hospitals and schools and police and firemen and soldiers?
Oct-27-2008 17:15
Kapedano
Forza Inter!
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Virginia Beach
Should we redistribute grades? If a person gets an A all the time, and another person in failing, why don't we take some grades from the A student and give it to the F student for the better of society?
Oct-27-2008 17:18
Zild
Ten City
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: San Antonio, US : TXTA #156
If getting my degree from a public university makes me a communist then I guess I'm a communist.
___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.
