Wealth Distribution

[Eva Stoops]

Recently I went out to serve food to homeless people. They were all really nice and grateful that we were there, but it did get me thinking. 

I know I have a really great life. I always have enough food, good housing, an education and I don't really have any family issues. We don't really have a lot of money, but we are not poor. We give money and volunteer fairly regularly, but because we don't have a lot of excess, we don't do that much.

What I really wonder about is why people in the really high upper class remain in the upper class. Why they think they need all these less then useful possessions when so many people have so little. I do think that they deserve some of what they have, but what does one really NEED all that extra money for? Why does anyone think that, in a very rich example, they should get that extra summer home when some people don't even have a home at all?

I am not saying that people should give up their money. I like the life I have, and I think that I do deserve some possessions because of the work my family does, but I think that we really should be willing as a society to give more to those in need. I think we need to look less highly on money. I think this is especially true for the really really rich. I know that, for an example, that JK Rowling has more then one castle. It is one thing to have a home enough food and some extra possessions, but it is entirely another to spend money on another castle. What does one put in the other castle. Why would you want another empty house. Why do mansions look so appealing if you don't use any of the space?

I do not wish to be famous, or rich in any way, but due to my circumstances I know that I will have the potential to become fairly wealthy, but I do not think that I want to keep that wealth. I want a modest home, enough food for my family, and enough money to pay for my children's educations. I don't think that being rich would make me any happier.

What do you guys think? Do you think that the rich do deserve to keep all the money they have? What about assisting those in other countries, or even the USA, who have considerably less? Would being rich make you guys happeir? I would love to hear your opinions. 

[sabelmouse]

how did the rich get rich in the first place? by the fundamental unfairness that is built into capitalism.
they are the equivelant of the olden day robber barons.
no, they do not deserve their money. nobody needs millions and certainly not billions.
i say of with their heads and remember the dalai lama sees the evils of capitalism.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/I-am-a-Marxist-monk-Dalai-L...

[Eva Stoops]

I don't know if socialism is completely the right idea though, because there are some lazy people. I just think everyone should have the same start, no matter how much money your parents had. And I think everyone should have a kind of money cap, but hard work should still have rewards. Its a hard question to answer.

[Jamo]

Okay, do people deserve to keep their millions of dollars? If they earned it I think they do deserve to keep it.

Do I think that as a society we need to be more giving? I most certainly agree with this. That's one of the main reasons I am a NerdFighter, to decrease world suck.

Do I think that we should have things like welfare, medicare and social security? I do not think that we should have those things. It is my opinion that the government should not be taking money from people and giving it to others. I think that the government should only make polices that help everyone (highways, parks ect.), not just some people while harming others. It should be the peoples choice about what they want to do with their money

Now I really want to reiterate that I am a person who is a great supporter of charities and non profit organizations. They are great venues for people to help others (It isn't forced and gives choice to help).

Oh and about a money cap, that would be a horrible idea in my opinion. What makes Capitalism so awesome is the fact that you can become rich. It gives an incentive to make new things, bring out new ideas and a better chance to make a good life. That's why America is the leader in medical breakthroughs, we have more incentive to create better things. Without that incentive of money there are so many less good ideas and the world cannot be as could as it would.

With the ability to make more money that makes the ability to make businesses and thus make more jobs for people. More jobs means more money in the economy and more money in the economy means better overall living conditions for the whole country. I believe that restricting & taking money from people to give to others, will cause much more harm than just letting it do it's own thing.

Please reply!

[Eystein,]

"Okay, do people deserve to keep their millions of dollars? If they earned it I think they do deserve to keep it."

But when they die, the state can take it right? :P You know money is power too... We don't allow people to inherit political power anymore, so why should we allow people to inherit rediculous amount of money that they haven't earned, and may have no skills of managing?

"Do I think that as a society we need to be more giving? I most certainly agree with this. That's one of the main reasons I am a NerdFighter, to decrease world suck."

But there's nothing indicating that societies will get more charitable than they already are on their own.

I think it's a very hard question though, but I lean towards redistribution I think. Really rich people needs to have some clear responsibilities towards the country which they live, and multinational coorporations needs similar resposibilities on how to improve the overall conditions in the areas they do their primary activities.

[Jamo]

No when they die the state should only get their money if they wish the state to get it. They already take something like 20% or 30% when we die. Usually the person with the money will give it to people who know how to use it. *Most* rich people are not dumb enough to waste their money.

I agree that society is not as charitable as it needs to be. Maybe instead of them just taking money from us for welfare and all of that such, if we donate we should get major tax returns b/c that money that we are giving them should be going to the people anyway. The really rich I do think should donate more, but I do not think that they don't deserve all of that money. Most rich people have businesses and making them less rich will lower the amount of jobs that they created.

[Petter Karlsson]

That might work out great, but as you said, every one should have the same opportunities. They do not, because if you start of with different amounts of money, then you have already killed that concept, but to still keep the actual gain of money you have to give out the basics for free, so that every one can start of fairly equal. I.e. free education, health care, access to food and shelter. I'm not saying that we should all be communists and just get rid of all capitalism. I'm saying that unless the basics are free, then the very core arguments of capitalism is false (that every one will have a chance to get rich).
I can say that here about 1.5% of the people have 99.9% of the "ownage", and I'm certain that it's less than 1,5% of the people in the US. Then those 1,5%- are already rich and unless one of them gets poor no one else can be rich, or if every one else gets less money. People often fail to see that money must come from somewhere. You cannot get more without some one else getting less. With people stocking up billions of dollars for no apparent reason except having them. That's what caused our unstable economy in the first place. Capitalism depends on every one spending, and since people get rich and stockpile their money it fails.

[Jamo]

Have you seen rich peoples houses? Have you seen expanding businesses? Most rich people spend money. You have to spend money to make money.

I disagree with the not everyone has a chance to get rich thing that you said. My father was a less than rich guy making <$30,000 a year with a family of 7. Obviously we weren't able to afford health insurance (Which I do not believe is a necessity) because of that. He then decided to try hard an he was able to get to be worth 15 million dollars by starting his own stock trading business (Oh, he never finished college BTW). There is a long story I wish not to go to, but now our family is again below the poverty line. So I have had the privilege of seeing both sides of the spectrum, both rich and poor. I know from experience that when the government is not in charge of things like money it makes it much easier to get through life even for the poor

[Übereil]

Sure it's possible to become ritch in the US, it's possible to become ritch anywhere. Is it likely though?

[Eystein,]

I don't understand how you can say it's wrong to have free medicare for all, when you've grown up in a family which haven't always been able to afford insurance. What if a horrible accident had happend to your family, or that one of your siblings had a horrible affliction demanding constant care and costly treatment? What if your dad failed his attempts and got 15 million in dept instead? Don't you think it honorable for societies to help out families struck by multiple misfortunes like these at once, and not just trust some charities will fix it?

Charities usually only reach those totally desperate. A social welfare system can reach those who haven't completily reached the bottom yet, and help them turn their way around when it's still pretty easy to fix.

[Jamo]

It is because medicare isn't free. Somebody has to pay for it. I don't think it is fair to have to take money from someone just to pay for what should be our responsibility. Not only does it make the poor even lazier (I am aware that there are a few people who legitimately can't make money for themselves), it takes more money from the rich which in turn makes them have to downsize business and that just makes the problem worse.

If that bad stuff did happen then we would deal with it however we could. People always find a way to deal. Right now we could be on welfare and choose not to because it is morally wrong to steal and to cause people to lose their jobs.

People shouldn't look to the government for all the fixes. Don't look at what your country can do for you, but look at what you can do for your country.

If you disagree with how people are doing business then start your own business and treat everyone fairly. If you do that people will only go for good jobs and it will all change for the better. We as a people need to try more instead of just blaming other people and asking the government to steal for us.

The reality of the world is everything cost money. Welfare is costing too much money to keep going on forever and is causing much more harm than good.

[Jamo]

That is not what caused the economic crash. They kept their money because they knew it was going to happen. It was banks giving out loans to people with horrible credit that were never going to be able to pay them off is what caused the crash.

[sabelmouse]

most people earn that much money by having others do a lot of work, maybe reasonably paid, maybe all but slave labour, or in fact actuall slave labour.
not fair.
as for making money on stocks; same thing. read
http://rajpatel.org/