|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wealth Distribution in the USA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What happens to the wealth if everyone does that? It gets distributed, obviously.
A lot of people work very hard just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table and nothing more. I never recommended taking from the dirt poor to give to the rest of the dirt poor. But the folks whose wealth is so vast? Do you think they have a little to spare? Where do you think their wealth comes from?
I also suggest that our sense of self worth comes from contributing to our world and not through self gratification for its own sake, and from feeling that we have worked for and earned what self gratification we enjoy. Maybe yours does; but everyone is different.
We only have to look at the issues surrounding our First Nations in Canada. ... I don't think this example scales.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But if there is extra money to go aroundso much so that the people who have it, their children, their children's children, and their children's children's children could never possibly spend itwhy not? Why? People have hobbies anyway. If we have that much spare money, why not use it to abolish polio instead of paying some guy to build a scale model of Notre Dame out of matchsticks.
How do you measure this? What's the 'worth' of a hobby? Are we worthwhile? What about the unemployed guy who starts a blog on his favorite pastime: refrigerator repair? What's a hobby 'worth'? I will decide that for a small fee.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
DA writes: If we have that much spare money, why not use it to abolish polio instead of paying some guy to build a scale model of Notre Dame out of matchsticks. Are they mutually exclusive? Perhaps we can do both.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Jon writes: It gets distributed, obviously. My point was that there wouldn't be any wealth to distribute. Our countries would just become two more impoverished nations.
Jon writes: I don't think this example scales. It is an example of doing what you suggest only on a smaller scale.
Jon writes: I never recommended taking from the dirt poor to give to the rest of the dirt poor. But the folks whose wealth is so vast? Do you think they have a little to spare? Where do you think their wealth comes from? The wealth comes from people who work and innovate. Yes, there are those who accumulate a lot of wealth from being particularly innovative and hard working, and some who are just plain fortunate but their wealth is still dependant on others working hard. I agree that the outcomes very often aren't fair and often the wealthy do take advantage of their situation but what you propose would only exacerbate the problem. The most prosperous nations are the nations that have a working class with a strong work ethic. And certainly I agree that there will always be those that need assistance and we should work towards the best available method of providing that assistance but your method would turn out countries into massive ghettoes. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The wealth comes from people who work and innovate. And right now goes mostly to a few people who do neither of those things. What's stopping us from distributing it to the rest of the people who also do neither of those things?
Yes, there are those who accumulate a lot of wealth from being particularly innovative and hard working, and some who are just plain fortunate but their wealth is still dependant on others working hard. Exactly; it's the work of others that creates their wealth. They don't actually create any of it themselves. Is it hard to imagine this billions of dollars of wealth being shared with the rest of the people who also didn't create any of it?
I agree that the outcomes very often aren't fair and often the wealthy do take advantage of their situation but what you propose would only exacerbate the problem. How?
The most prosperous nations are the nations that have a working class with a strong work ethic. Maybe we don't want to be 'prosperous', but just happy.
The most prosperous nations are the nations that have a working class with a strong work ethic. That nation would still exist. Notice that my proposal effectively changes nothing. Right now:
The only difference in my proposal is that it is more equitable. What do you have against equality?
your method would turn out countries into massive ghettoes. How so? Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, as with Coyote's idea for improving the economy, I volunteer to be the first and possibly the last beneficiary of the New Order. Please would you and Jon send me any spare money you have, and in return I shall pursue my hobbies, something that I was going to do anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If I had spare I would gladly do that.
AbE: And of course, your response has nothing to do with the questions I asked. Edited by jar, : see AbE:Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And of course, your response has nothing to do with the questions I asked. OK, in answer to your question, I would say that we probably don't have enough money to fix all the actual problems in the world and pay people to have hobbies, so if we have to choose we should probably concentrate on the former.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Right now:
The only difference in my proposal is that it is more equitable. Equitable for whom? Certainly not for those who actually create wealth! "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is straight out of Karl Marx, and that sentiment has been shown to belong in the trash bin of history, one of the stupidest ideas ever conceived in the fevered mind of a ne'er-do-well. Those who believe this nonsense are generally the non-productive, or "intellectuals" of a similar stripe. They are always willing to "share the wealth" but rarely do they actually create wealth themselves. Personally I have nothing that could be called wealth, but yet there are always those willing to "share" it, starting with the government and their dependents, of which there are an ever-increasing number. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But we may have far more than enough money. For example, there's far more than enough money to wipe out polio world-wide. Money is not the problem, politics are the problem there.
Obviously we should try to do those things that will provide the greatest return but trying to frame the issue with sophomoric examples and false dichotomies does nothing productive. The issue and topic are about wealth distribution in the US. Polio is not an issue in the US and totally unrelated to the topic.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But we may have far more than enough money. For example, there's far more than enough money to wipe out polio world-wide. Well, just in case, shall we do that first?
Money is not the problem, politics are the problem there. Obviously we should try to do those things that will provide the greatest return but trying to frame the issue with sophomoric examples and false dichotomies does nothing productive. I had forgotten that only sophomores object to polio; a fleeting antipathy which in mature individuals vanishes in one's senior year.
The issue and topic are about wealth distribution in the US. Polio is not an issue in the US and totally unrelated to the topic. Well, it's an example of something else we could do with the money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But it is not the topic of the thread.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The only difference in my proposal is that it is more equitable. Equitable for whom? Certainly not for those who actually create wealth! But neither is the current system; not by far.
Personally I have nothing that could be called wealth Well then you'll love the system I've proposed; it's a system of wealth redistribution. If you ain't got wealth, then you ain't got worries. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Well, a long lost voice from the past. You left a hell of a hole in EvC, Mod. About time you got your ass back here.
Welcome back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The only difference in my proposal is that it is more equitable. Equitable for whom? Certainly not for those who actually create wealth! But neither is the current system; not by far. You're right, the current system is not equitable for those who actually create wealth.
Personally I have nothing that could be called wealth Well then you'll love the system I've proposed; it's a system of wealth redistribution. If you ain't got wealth, then you ain't got worries. But if you're honest, it will be of no value to you as you didn't actually win that race. The same is true of redistributed wealth--you didn't earn it so it has far less value than money you actually earned through your own efforts. It is nothing to be proud of. So no, I am not in favor of redistribution even if I were to be the beneficiary.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024