Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?Page 2 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
For those who want to claim the reason redistibution is needed is cause the rich dont pay, that isnt a vailid answer to raising their rates higher... Its a valid reason to close loop holes.
For those who say the middle class pays the highest percentage in taxes, i am sorry i have to ask you to back that up. Everything i have read says the wealthiest 5% pay the majority of taxes.
As for redistribution is needed to pay for the government this nation survived with out the progressive tax system it had for over a hundred years. It was only when the government got into social programs that it was needed. So if the government had found a better form of taxation or used a flat tax to pay for its social programs this question would be mute wouldnt it? Nope it is still a valid reason to know why it is needed.
If it is needed so that the poor dont rise up and destroy the rich, then call it what it is, is isnt redistibution its a pay off.
 gizmosellschickens
Joined: 5/20/2007
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/8/2008 11:39:02 PM
Rich use lawyers and lobbyists to get out of paying taxes. Still, the tax system hurts savers with money because they tax the dollar before it deposited into a savings account. Wealth redistrubtion idea been preverted for politcal purposes by both sides. Every worker should pay 15% flat tax above poverty line

Strongly against Dog eat Dog captialism because after lower forms are eliminated the greedy eat the greedy Does mean we cant winner or losers in the market. Wealth redistrubtion is complex matter its not always RobinHood rich steal from Poor. Sometimes its Rich stealing from the Rich or Poor stealing from the Poor.

The goverments in the 18th century Europe found out that to make the country wealthy it means taxing the nobles to fund education services. The Americans had Louis the IX as thier curropt King are attitude toward wealth be exactly like the French. Louis IX taxed the hell out of the peasants and flaunted his wealth and his noble elite extracted tribute for Loius and kept little for themshevles. The common people were getting screwed hard by French Monarchy at the time and Gullotine became well known because of that. The rich French nobles and Clegryman thugs getting so rich they got blinded by thier greed and went into wars with England and supported American independance. When the inflation and bread shortages occured Louis regin was in trobule.

Plutocracy can occur without even it being planned out, and wealth redistribution is not just about money. Wealth redistrubtion is about decent access to healthcare and education to able to accomplish what you can be.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/9/2008 12:30:45 PM

But if the system is unfair


IS the system "unfair"?

By what measure?
 eeeo4U
Joined: 6/25/2007
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/9/2008 2:13:00 PM
I have "enough" now...in answer to Bud Fox's question to Gordon Gekko, "How many yachts can you waterski behind?" I say "none...they make too big a wake and usually can't get up on plane...that's why I use a 23-foot Baja instead!" I don't mind paying what taxes I do...I don't think it would be more patriotic to pay more taxes, I think I spilled enough blood in combat and enough sweat in training to prove how patriotic I am. I'm still thinking that if a car dealership paid a lower percentage of sales commission the more vehicles a salesperson sold, they would have an extremely difficult time attracting the best salespeople...although they would have plenty of mediocre ones. Even when at my lowest economic ebb, I thought that yes, indeed this was a miserable situation, but that it was temporary and I never wanted the government to rescue me...and that situation scared me more than people wanting to kill me. Death would be hopefully instantaneous, poverty lasts a lot longer...but I always figured that, God willing and my nose to the grindstone, my turn would come and it did!
 JimBrooklyn
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/22/2008 1:09:31 PM
3% simply doesn't address the reality of the tax system - our system is progressive meaning that as out incomes go up so do our respective tax rate for the additional income. And, btw, even if some susggest that the rich can deduct their way to zero tax that is a fallacy given the AMT which has creeped into the middle class tax realm. I agree taxes should fall evenly which is why your analogy to sales tax is often used to support a simplified tax plan with one rate and no deductions.
 gizmosellschickens
Joined: 5/20/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/22/2008 9:25:51 PM
"Redistrubtion of weath should be used to reduce absolute poverty" People on the left take it overboard and turn into a class warfare with inequality.

The right wing does not realize that some social benefits are less to the taxpayer and lower crime.

The key is knowing where to draw the line, and Democrats and Republicans dont know where to draw the line.

Relative Poverty like complain like the CEO makes 20 million and we line workers make 30,000 a year. Sorry, peeps you wanna make more money work more hours, or get job skills upgraded. Majority of people know where to draw the line, but the politicans dont because they need to give handouts to ensure reelection.
 SteelCity1981
Joined: 8/16/2005
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 2:38:30 AM
Big corporations really don't pay taxes anyhow; as soon as they get taxed more, they redistribute those higher tax premiums onto their products and the consumer ends up paying for it in the end. It's all one big circle.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 7:59:00 AM
Just to set the record straight...
"The Tax Foundation states that the tax cuts signed by U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, contrary to popular belief, actually made the U.S. tax code more progressive, not less. In 1980, before Reagan's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 19.05% of all federal income taxes, and by 1988, after Reagan's tax cuts, their share had increased to 27.58%. Likewise, in 2001, before Bush's tax cuts, the richest 1% paid 33.89% of all federal income taxes, and by 2006, after Bush's tax cuts, their share had increased to 39.89%. "
Clinton actually held the first bracket at 15% ($0-$7800) and the Bush tax cuts reduced the first bracket by a full 1/3rd to 10%.
I can't really make sense of the Obama plan since it seems to restructure the brackets more so than the bracket tax rates, the current top threshold is $357,000, and according to Obama, that will be dropped to $250,000, with all under $250,000 taxed at yet a different rate. To me it sounds like a sliding scale, and rather than paying the "flat rate" identified in the brackets, there will be a dual rate applied. At first glance it seems to benefit the wealthy and penalize the middle class by increasing their rate by a full 3 points.

I don't see any place in Obama's plan to streamline the current Government operational budget. No cuts in staffing or spending, merely reductions in future projections, and that is not a cut that's simply less of an increase than originally proposed.

You stimulate the economy by giving consumers more money to spend, not less, and it doesn't matter what income level you are, common sense dictates if you have less available to spend, then you will spend proportionately less (excluding the Government of course).

Corporations only exist because consumers purchase their products and services, lessening the amount of funds they have to make those purchases by increased taxation results in corporate downsizing ... companies will not continue to make products at a rate that exceeds consumer demand ... the notion of taxing corporations as a means of wealth redistribution is inane in that all costs associated with goods and services are passed on to the consumer 100%. If you cause an increase in product cost by lets say 25%, then the consumer will actually have to pay more actual dollars than the 25% because the profits are based on capital invested, also, the at the register costs will increase yet again for flat rate sales taxes. Please tell me how this benefits the consumer?!?!?!?!?!?
This isn’t just Economics 101, its Common Sense 101, it seems the problem with common sense is that it’s apparently not all that common…
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 8:08:39 AM

By giving the rich tax breaks...it create more new jobs for us.....this has been proven...also known as the Trickle down theory....

The rich keep their money and reinvest it into their companies which creates jobs for us...

You do realize that Reaganomics failed miserably right? Unless by "creates more jobs for us" where "us" is the East Indian call centers or Mexican Truck plants you should see that you argument is based on belief unsupported by fact. Consumerism creates more wealth for a nation that wealthy people do.......that is also why you had the crash so recently the consumerism that was artificially supporting your economy on bad loans finally floundered.
 flawedbutfun
Joined: 6/19/2007
Msg: 35
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 9:01:37 AM

Is there a middle class in Cuba? Is there a middle class in Russia? Is there a middle class in China? Is there a middle class in North Korea? What is the state of the middle class in Venezuela or in Chile? It is ALWAYS the MIDDLE CLASS that suffers and declines under socialism.


Keep voting for GOP trickle down, cut the tax of corporations and wealthy and you can add U.S.A. to your list of countries.

Pure Capitalism does not work, pure socialism does not work, pure communism does not work, etc. We are not even close to a socialist society, GOP just throws that around to scare people and suck up to the right wing nuts in the party...just like they do with patriotism, real Americans, morals, etc. GOP has really embraced the 'you are with us, or you are against us' philosophy. No room for bipartisan cooperation from them.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 10:05:43 AM
"Sorry, peeps you wanna make more money work more hours, or get job skills upgraded. "

I have a doctorate and consistently work 60 or more hours a week. I do not make over $250,000 a year. I am not wealthy. Your logic is missing the willingness to perform some of the unethical acts of the wealthy or be born into the monied class or to be a sports/entertainment star in the top percentages of those groups. Education and hard work alone are not enough to be wealthy.

My son is likely to be more of a wealth producer than I have been ... though I doubt he will top the $250k mark, but he could fool me. He just isn't born to money or the wealthy class and he is a highly ethical person. However, he is likely to always make more than his wife because she took her Masters in history and converted it to teaching and is now a certified teacher in a low income city. Most of her "income" is the non-monetary rewards of the impact she has on her student's futures that they both value. They have a disparity of incomes that is likely to get larger as they age. It became a question as to how to handle the family budget with disparate incomes.

We are attempting to solve the same problem. How do you solve the national budget with disparate incomes. I do believe in debt with payoff plans. I don't believe in ever increasing debt that has no chance to be paid off. If you can't afford to pay it off in a reasonable amount of time, don't spend it. (I do live what I preach. My only debts are my student loan and mortgage, both of which have planned payoffs).

That means that the lifestyle had to be based upon her income. An agreed upon percentage of her net income is "her money" for her to pay off her student loans and spend discretionarily. The balance is her contribution to the family budget. He had to match her contribution. This made them equal partners in the budget and established the lifestyle they could afford.

The problem was that he didn't want to live the lifestyle that they could afford on their matched funds. To have a better lifestyle than she could equally contribute to he had to pay more of the costs. An inequitable amount.

We face the same issue with the disparate incomes of Americans. The total funds available if the same dollar amount was contributed by each person would not be enough to pay for everything in the budget. As a result, it is necessary to cut the spending AND have those who can pay more pay more.

Personally, I am all in favor of those that wanted to attack Iraq to have to pay the $10billion a month. I campaigned against it from months before we attacked. From the first suggestion that we attack I was opposed to my money being spent on that war. Let those that wanted it pay for it. Let those who want to pay for abortions pay for them. Let those who want to federally fund bridges to nowhere in alaska fund the bridges. Let those who don't want to pay for police or fire move to neighborhoods without police or fire and not pay for them. Let those who don't want to use roads, streets, mass transit stay in their homes and not use them or go live in rural areas with undeveloped dirt roads.

Maybe if we had to sign up or opt out of what the government budgets and spends we would start realizing that if you want it you have to pay for it and we would stop pushing our government to spend more than we can afford.

So, as long as we have budgets that are larger than the middle class can reasonably pay then the wealthy will have to pay a disproportionate amount. If they want to pay less, they need to get the government to spend less. Making the middle class pay more is unreasonable solution. It isn't a redistribution of wealth. It is a getting the funds to pay the bills where the funds can be found.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 10:36:59 AM

We face the same issue with the disparate incomes of Americans. The total funds available if the same dollar amount was contributed by each person would not be enough to pay for everything in the budget. As a result, it is necessary to cut the spending AND have those who can pay more pay more.


Why not just cut spending?

If you're in favor of having those that support the war pay for it, let's take that a step further. Let's have only those who believe in supporting people who do not want to work pay for it. Let's have only those who believe in the government taking over health care pay for it.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 12:20:36 PM

Keep voting for GOP trickle down, cut the tax of corporations and wealthy and you can add U.S.A. to your list of countries.
We have an option for trickle UP economics? The simple fact is, that it doesn’t matter how you free up money by reducing taxes, it stimulates the economy. Never in American history has a tax increase resulted in an economic boon, quite the contrary, it causes an economic slowdown.


Pure Capitalism does not work, pure socialism does not work, pure communism does not work, etc. We are not even close to a socialist society, GOP just throws that around to scare people and suck up to the right wing nuts in the party...just like they do with patriotism, real Americans, morals, etc. GOP has really embraced the 'you are with us, or you are against us' philosophy. No room for bipartisan cooperation from them.
Typical cop out. The redistribution of wealth is the defining cornerstone of economic socialism. Doesn’t matter if you’re afraid of the term or find it offensive, it is precisely accurate.


There are others who believe Capitalistic theory is sound. I sympathize with them - tough to let go of one's core beliefs. In the end, though, when they wake up one day and realize it is now taking two incomes to support one household; when thirty short years ago it required only one. And yet, now they can't afford to send their children to college or fill the gas tank and the grocery cart doesn't seem to contain as much. And the bank is foreclosing on their homes. Their wages have not held value but the quality of life for the boss continues to rise. And...

And they finally see they will never be that one in fifty. And...

And they realize their children will never own a home, but will pay exorbinate rents for the rest of their lives to live in the company town and will buy their food at the company store with their meager pay. They will be contained, maintained, and controlled while left without hope for anything more.

And it will finally dawn on them that they have been screwed.
I disagree with this completely. To begin, it’s based on opinion without any statistical data. every increase in “staples” has matched dollar for dollar the increases in minimum wage, indicating the limited share the wealth experiment is detrimental to middle class. Median wage has increased from $35,832 in 1970, to $50,233.00 in 2007. To break it down from one administration to another, growth under the Carter Administration was a whopping 1%. Under Reagan - 7%, Bush 41 - 10.5%, Clinton - 6%, Bush 43 - 12%.

1970 (adjusted to 2000 dollars)
Average Cost of new house $65,300.00
Average Income per year $35,832.00
Average Monthly Rent $340.00

2007
Average Cost of new house $119,600.00
Average Income per year $50,233.00
Average Monthly Rent $607.00

As demonstrated by the above, from a percentage perspective, the only thing that did not gain proportionately is housing. From what I can ascertain, the primary cause is due in no small part to the level of luxury currently existing in current homes and rental communities, the near 100% increase in square footage, microwaves, central heat and air, 2 car garages, multiple bathrooms, pools, laundry facilities, game rooms, gym and other amenities simply did not exist at the current level 37 years ago.
 MacKevinized
Joined: 2/15/2006
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 3:24:43 PM

We have an option for trickle UP economics? The simple fact is, that it doesn’t matter how you free up money by reducing taxes, it stimulates the economy. Never in American history has a tax increase resulted in an economic boon, quite the contrary, it causes an economic slowdown.


The simple fact is .....

FDR for raising taxes and spending on New Deal activities that provided us with the longest bull market in history. You know, when the federal government stepped in to expand the government with programs that improved roads and other infrastructure? Where people worked for the industrialists and could afford to have a wife and kids, pay for his house and save for old age with things called pensions.


The redistribution of wealth is the defining cornerstone of economic socialism. Doesn’t matter if you’re afraid of the term or find it offensive, it is precisely accurate.


Kind or like the socialists that are bailing out the banks? Economic socialism is supposed to help the masses, not the elite.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 9:13:22 PM

When did better health care and education become a bad thing?


Yes, while those who say that it is are in favor of sending billions to Georgia, Columbia, Pakistan, etc. without batting an eye. No one needed to have more taken from them to take care of our own because there used to be enough for our own underprivileged if we hadn't spent decades giving it to places in order to protect the business interests of the already powerful.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/23/2008 11:47:09 PM
"Let's have only those who believe in supporting people who do not want to work pay for it."

There are no programs for those who do not want to work. There are those that cheat the system built to assist those who do not have jobs and do want to work to get back to working. Wealthy people cheat too. Middle class gets stabbed in the back by both groups.

The cost of getting a person back to work is much lower than the revenue generated by them when they do go to work. The long-term payoff is great. So, if I am going to pay the taxes to put them to work, I want credit for part of the taxes they pay when they go to work. It's the return on my investment. And if you didn't want to pay to get them back to producing revenue and paying taxes, then I don't think you should benefit from them being productive citizens.

The ladies in my home are either employed when they move in or have 30 days to be employed. I do invest in them increasing their productivity value to our society. There are good systems in place that benefit everyone and are a good return on the investment.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/24/2008 8:11:59 AM
It always amazes me that the most outspoken in favor of increased taxes are those already on the government payroll, and those least in favor are the ones whose livelihood is dependant on government stepping out of their way. It’s only natural that government dependants want an increased role of government; after all it has a positive affect on their livelihood. Conversely those who foot the bill want a decreased government presence because it adversely impacts theirs… Because they “work” may of them do not consider themselves government “dependants” but the simple fact is the vast majority could not sustain a similar income in the private sector and require their jobs be protected by government regulations.

I'm amazed by the pseudo-intellectuals who in response to having their values accurately defined as socialistic in nature counter with some sort of Nazi type slur without considering the simple fact that while not all socialists are Nazi's, all Nazi's WERE socialists... (look it up people).

I'm stunned when people make reference to the "top tier" of the social classes as having widened the gap between "rich and poor" without considering that there is only a single path on that journey and every step is on the backs of the middle class. When income tax was first enacted in the United States it was 1.1% of gross income and was applied across the board. In every Democratic administration since, that tax has grown disproportionately and with few exceptions in favor of the top 5%. Republican administrations have done little if anything to even out the playing field, Reagan and Bush 43 being the only two that come to mind as having made significant shift in placing a heavier burden on the top 5%. I realize the citation of such facts goes against the fallacies propagated by the mainstream media, or liberal party propaganda but that doesn't make them any less true. Some will point to “progressive” administrations that are identified with a 70% tax rate on the top 5% without making any acknowledgement to the loopholes specifically designed into the system that actually provided for the top 5% to pay a smaller percentage than that of middle class.
When we do make the next step into blatant socialism, the redistribution of wealth, we will do so by assignment rather than achievement. Lowering the threshold that defines the top 5% is the first step, creating the illusion that there are “more” wealthy, and providing free services to the lowest tier, while still requiring the rest to cover their costs as well as those of the lower tier is the second step. Historically socialism does nothing to make the "poor" richer, but the rich do get richer, and in larger chunks at a faster pace than in a capitalist economy.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/24/2008 10:34:47 AM
"When income tax was first enacted in the United States it was 1.1% of gross income and was applied across the board. In every Democratic administration since, that tax has grown disproportionately and with few exceptions in favor of the top 5%. Republican administrations have done little if anything to even out the playing field, Reagan and Bush 43 being the only two that come to mind as having made significant shift in placing a heavier burden on the top 5%. "

Reagan and Bush did not place a heavier burden on the top 5%! As part of my doctoral work I had the pleasure of going to Washington and being trained in our tax system by the same people who train the new Congress People when they are elected. One of the primary keys to that training is that we have a social engineering tax system. The party in power decides who carries the burden. The Republicans have been in control of the tax system for the last 8 years. They have reduced the taxes on the wealthy. Their social engineering favors the wealthy. They are the party of the wealthy - not the middle class.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 44
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/24/2008 10:41:42 AM
Tim, Tim, Tim.

And you're usually so thoughtful - even when you're wrong.

The tax issue was tackled already, but Nazis as Socialists? C'mon, you can do better than that. They were fascists - Musolinni, who invented it, preferred the term Corporatist. The State would act for the corporations.

They used Socialist in the name the same way the GDR used Democratic in the name - purely for purposes of good will around the word. In neither case was there any desire to actually follow the principles.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/24/2008 10:42:07 AM
First off i think many of you miss part of the point. It is not a question of who should we tax at a higher level, the top brackets or the middle class, the question concerns should we tax both of those groups to give money to those who dont work or are poor. Second, those of you who keep saying the rich dont pay enough, there are some facts you keep missing, they already pay the majority of the taxes in this country. The top 5% pay 70%. That is with all the loop holes and every other dodge that is out there. They are the primary source of revenue under the tax plan in this nation, and have been since the 20's.
I have never asked anyone if the loopholes should be closed, i think why not. But i do ask why should we say tax them more. They are already paying 70% how much do you want them to pay? 80% 90% all of it? Should the top 5% pay all the income tax in this nation? Let the middle class off and give money to the poor? What do you all consider to be fair?
As for those of you who keep talking about the last 8 years, well even in the last 8 years the top brackets still pay the largest share of income taxes in this nation.
 cncgandolf
Joined: 7/29/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/24/2008 10:52:28 AM
"I have never asked anyone if the loopholes should be closed, i think why not. But i do ask why should we say tax them more."

If you are including as a loophole the tax reduction they have had for the last 8 years that is currently under a sunset that is supposed to end them, then all the Dems are saying is to allow the sunset to happen. End the reduction.

Obama's plan = allow the sunset to happen - end the reduction loophole

McCain's plan = cancel the sunset. Make the reductions permanent.

The Dem plan doesn't include any increased taxes for anyone .. only allowing the sunset to happen to close the reduction loophole.

McCain has cleverly included added reductions for the wealthy continuing to claim that lowering wealthy tax helps the middle class. It doesn't.
 tallskier
Joined: 5/20/2005
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/24/2008 10:58:51 AM

The Dem plan doesn't include any increased taxes for anyone .. only allowing the sunset to happen to close the reduction loophole.


Removing tax reductions doesn't increase taxes. Stunning.
 dragonpat
Joined: 9/29/2006
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/24/2008 11:03:14 AM
Again you fail to answer my question, if even with these "reductions" the rich are paying 70% of the taxes in this nation, why do you think they should pay more?
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 49
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/24/2008 7:04:57 PM
Problem is that the 3 cents on the dollar is set to expire in 2010, and Congressional Budget Office already assumes this in their projections. Therefore that money is not available for Obama to use in his health care plan.


The Obama campaign says it would finance the $50 billion to $65 billion in new federal spending for its health plan by allowing tax cuts adopted in 2001 and 2003 for families making over $250,000 to expire. However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) already assumes in its projections that these tax cuts will end after 2010, so their expiration will not generate new revenues to satisfy congressional budget rules. And if savings from prevention, disease management, and electronic medical records are not realized — or if the CBO does not validate them as an acceptable financing source — then the Obama plan would need substantial additional revenues to fund expanded coverage.


The Partisan Divide — The McCain and Obama Plans for U.S. Health Care Reform
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/8/781
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 50
Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?
Posted: 10/28/2008 10:27:33 PM

Many posters on here recognize that this is socialistic in nature and say what is wrong with socialism. So I was wondering, do most of you support the idea of wealth redistribution? Is it the purpose of government to take from those who have the most to support those who have the least? And is redistribution really needed and if so why?


I don't support wealth redistribution and I've had my struggles financially. I could use a modern day Robin hood to come to my rescue but I prefer to make it on my own through an entrepreneurial spirit and working hard.

This being said, I do recognize that we must set up safeguards for the elderly and infirmed, and that includes those who have serious mental problems. Unfortunately, there are always going to be those who take advantage of these kinds of programs and it is this that I would first address, if I had the capability of changing something in this country. Far too many people are playing the system and spoiling it for those who really need the help.

Those who have made it, who are wealthy through hard work, education, sacrifice, etc., deserve the fruit of their labors. I believe that most decent, ethical people are somewhat generous when they are not forced to be. I think that is key. When a man is forced to give, he begins to resent the giving. If he is allowed to give of himself, it's amazing what can happen. I think we need to get back to that kind of thinking, and trust our churches and communities to help more, and seek to encourage knowing one another's neighbors and basically return ourselves to a spirit of community that is missing in this country with all of its technological advances. We have regressed as a nation in this aspect of things.

These days, people feel they are entitled. They don't help one another. This is why they look to the government to provide. I think socialism is a mistake and the forced redistribution of wealth is an even bigger mistake.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Why should there be more redistribution of wealth?