Wealth Distribution in the USA

It gets distributed, obviously. 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? Maybe yours does; but everyone is different. I don't think this example scales.

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. I will decide that for a small fee.

Are they mutually exclusive? Perhaps we can do both.

My point was that there wouldn't be any wealth to distribute. Our countries would just become two more impoverished nations. It is an example of doing what you suggest only on a smaller scale. 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.

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? 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? How? Maybe we don't want to be 'prosperous', but just happy. That nation would still exist. Notice that my proposal effectively changes nothing. Right now:

• We have happy people working hard to create wealth.
• We have people not working to create wealth.
• We have people receiving wealth they didn't work to create.

My proposal is that we move to a system where:

• We have happy people working hard to create wealth.
• We have people not working to create wealth.
• We have people receiving wealth they didn't work to create.

The only difference in my proposal is that it is more equitable.What do you have against equality? How so?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Well, just in case, shall we do that first? I had forgotten that only sophomores object to polio; a fleeting antipathy which in mature individuals vanishes in one's senior year. Well, it's an example of something else we could do with the money.

But it is not the topic of the thread.

But neither is the current system; not by far. 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.

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.

You're right, the current system is not equitable for those who actually create wealth. Because your such a peach of a fellow I'm going to give you a trophy indicating you won the Indy 500 next week.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.