What is your opinion on Redistribution of Wealth?

[trisha613]

In my opinion it is not ok to take money from somebody who has earned to and give it to somebody who has not. We have equal opportunity in this country so the choice of one person should not result in "stealing" from another.

 

[Cephus]

Absolutely, 100% opposed to it in every way.

 

[Barbbtx]

In my opinion it is not ok to take money from somebody who has earned to and give it to somebody who has not. We have equal opportunity in this country so the choice of one person should not result in "stealing" from another.

Redistribution of wealth isn't right. Charity is good and makes us feel good. We are a giving and generous nation. RoW, takes that away from us and makes us bitter toward those who didn't earn it, and makes those who receive it feel they are entitled to what is not theirs.
Givers feel cheated and takers are unappreciative. It sucks.

 

[Blue Dog]

Working to earn something is one of the most important lessons we can learn in life. Redistribution just dampens the motive to contimue a strong work ethic. Charity will always come from the heart voluntarily, not from ones wallet forcibly.

 

[hussainmehdi]

What is your opinion on Redistribution of Wealth?

Let them store the wealth,
Redistribution of it will be natural later.

 

[tessaesque]

Earn your way. If you are mentally and physically capable, earn your way.

 

[liblady]

In my opinion it is not ok to take money from somebody who has earned to and give it to somebody who has not. We have equal opportunity in this country so the choice of one person should not result in "stealing" from another.

we absolutely DO NOT have equal opportunity. if we did, we would still have a responsiblity to provide for those can't provide for themselves.

 

[tessaesque]

we absolutely DO NOT have equal opportunity. if we did, we would still have a responsiblity to provide for those can't provide for themselves.

Do you think the majority of those on welfare and food stamps literally cannot provide for themselves?

 

[liblady]

Redistribution of wealth isn't right. Charity is good and makes us feel good. We are a giving and generous nation. RoW, takes that away from us and makes us bitter toward those who didn't earn it, and makes those who receive it feel they are entitled to what is not theirs.
Givers feel cheated and takers are unappreciative. It sucks.

oh whatever. i certainly don't feel cheated and bitter, it's too bad you and your christian self do. btw, how do you know how welfare recipients feel? food stamp recipients? maybe they feel grateful.

 

[liblady]

Do you think the majority of those on welfare and food stamps literally cannot provide for themselves?

given that welfare is given to single parents with CHILDREN, no, i don't feel that those children can provide for themselves. could their parents? maybe.....and that's why welfare programs are limited.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Well, let's keep something in mind.

Without government and public support, no one gets rich. The government provides roads, police, fire brigades, and the infrastructure for practically everything, including your ability to have an internet connection.

Withough people to either hire you or buy your goods or services, you get nowhere. Without the people working under you, taking care of the menial stuff, you get nowhere.

Every rich person owes their success in equal parts both to their own hard work, AND to the society in which they live.

Do we owe anything to people who can't support themselves? The operative word here is "can't." And yes, we do.

Let's keep in mind high IQ is more prevalent in those with mental illness. Let's keep in mind that Stephen Hawking is completely paralysed. Let's keep in mind that even people with severe retardation can be savants.

There are many different metrics upon which to measure human value. Ability to support oneself is not the only one. Great works of art, science, and mathematics have been contributed by people who couldn't support themselves. We wouldn't be where we are as a society without them.

Even if this person is not a genius or a great contributer, that doesn't negate their right to life. They were brought into this world without consent, and if they truly can't support themselves there is no one to blame. This doesn't give us the right to kill them. That isn't what civilised societies do. It also doesn't mean they're a drain on the system. What if they spend their time helping a charity to whatever extent they can, or tutoring kids in piano? Unable to work doesn't mean unable to take part - just that they can't do that on the same schedule or to the same degree as able people can.

Now, with all that said.

Do I think we should tax the rich more? Yes. Do I think we should tax them more than 50% of their income? No.

We're still a capitalist country, and they are still entitled to at least the majority of what they make. Since they have more, and they also rely on society to maintain their status more, they should pay more than people who aren't rich. But I don't believe in "equalizing" people. People are not equal. Sad, but true. Some people are smarter, or more hard-working, or more able than others.

Balance in all things, basically.

 

[Barbbtx]

oh whatever. i certainly don't feel cheated and bitter, it's too bad you and your christian self do. btw, how do you know how welfare recipients feel? food stamp recipients? maybe they feel grateful.

Some people on welfare and foodstamps, I'm sure are grateful. They are also needed social programs, though in need of reform.
I consider that, taking care of the poor and disabled.
When I think of redistribution of wealth, I think of a government trying to enforce equal stuff for everyone. You should be able to keep most of what you earn and what someone else earns is none of your business.

 

[tessaesque]

oh whatever. i certainly don't feel cheated and bitter, it's too bad you and your christian self do. btw, how do you know how welfare recipients feel? food stamp recipients? maybe they feel grateful.

I wouldn't include "grateful" in my descriptions of these people:

Man wins lottery, still gets food stamps

Food Stamp Abuse Caught On Camera - News Story - WSB Atlanta

Over $11 Million in California Welfare Funds Spent in Vegas Casinos | The Blaze

2 convicted in separate NH welfare fraud probes - Boston.com

Target 11 Investigates: Welfare Fraud - News Story - WPXI Pittsburgh

And those are the blatant misuses. I grew up in the welfare system and spent a large amount of time around welfare recipients. They're not all down on their knees, thanking Big Brother with tears in their eyes. They're largely demanding, expectant, and assume that they should have to do nothing to receive these benefits, based on their perception of their "need".

 

[tessaesque]

given that welfare is given to single parents with CHILDREN, no, i don't feel that those children can provide for themselves. could their parents? maybe.....and that's why welfare programs are limited.

Single parents aren't the only ones receiving benefits, and having children is optional, not obligatory. Why do you justify permitting somebody to avoid earning and providing for their families based on personal decisions they made?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I wouldn't include "grateful" in my descriptions of these people:

Man wins lottery, still gets food stamps

Food Stamp Abuse Caught On Camera - News Story - WSB Atlanta

Over $11 Million in California Welfare Funds Spent in Vegas Casinos | The Blaze

2 convicted in separate NH welfare fraud probes - Boston.com

Target 11 Investigates: Welfare Fraud - News Story - WPXI Pittsburgh

And those are the blatant misuses. I grew up in the welfare system and spent a large amount of time around welfare recipients. They're not all down on their knees, thanking Big Brother with tears in their eyes. They're largely demanding, expectant, and assume that they should have to do nothing to receive these benefits, based on their perception of their "need".

I absolutely agree welfare needs reform to reduce abuse. So do a lot of programs that are fundamentally good ideas.

Welfare should be either for people can't support themselves at all (and it must be "can't"), or people who are temporarily down on their luck (and it must be temporary).

If they are able to sustain their lives and get what they need, they shouldn't be complaining. I know some welfare recipients who are grateful for what they receive.

I also know those who have a sense of entitlement that they shouldn't. And I also know those who have specific needs that are poorly met by the system and they have valid complaints.

It's not black and white, basically.

 

[Geo Patric]

In my opinion it is not ok to take money from somebody who has earned to and give it to somebody who has not. We have equal opportunity in this country so the choice of one person should not result in "stealing" from another.

it is a essential aspect of ANY political economy. it has essentially become a slander of 'socialists', but in fact, if you spend a 3 seconds thinking about it, you will realize that simply going to the market and buying a quart of milk... 'redistributes wealth".

geo.

 

[Cephus]

I grew up in the welfare system and spent a large amount of time around welfare recipients. They're not all down on their knees, thanking Big Brother with tears in their eyes. They're largely demanding, expectant, and assume that they should have to do nothing to receive these benefits, based on their perception of their "need".

I spend a lot of time around welfare recipients and you're right. However, it isn't really "need" that I see, it's a perverse sense of entitlement. They think the world owes them a living. Many of the people I deal with are the most demanding, obnoxious idiots I can imagine. They don't feel the need to earn anything, they just deserve it because they got out of bed in the morning. I think it's because it's multi-generational. They grew up thinking they deserved everything, when they got older, they teach their children that they deserve everything. Many of them have children specifically so they get more money from the system.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I spend a lot of time around welfare recipients and you're right. However, it isn't really "need" that I see, it's a perverse sense of entitlement. They think the world owes them a living. Many of the people I deal with are the most demanding, obnoxious idiots I can imagine. They don't feel the need to earn anything, they just deserve it because they got out of bed in the morning. I think it's because it's multi-generational. They grew up thinking they deserved everything, when they got older, they teach their children that they deserve everything. Many of them have children specifically so they get more money from the system.

This is true to some extent, from a generational perspective. There have been times in my life when I more than qualified for some type of welfare, and people told me to do it. I didn't. Because there were people who needed it more than I did. I'm young, able-bodied, and able-minded.

While I don't think there's any shame in it, and I did qualify, and welfare is also for temporary relief, I just couldn't. Maybe it's because my family never has, even though they've gone through their bad spells as well. But if I had decided to do it for a couple of months, would that have made me a bad or self-entitled person? No, I don't think so. That's a perfectly proper use of welfare.

If anything, my unwillingness to do it probably made my hardship last longer than it had to. It may have even been unwise for the economy for me not to do it.

So then, is it really the system's fault, or is it the fault of people's upbringing and personal drive? Maybe both. Maybe we need to be examining the attitudes people are growing up with, as well as tightening the laws that allow for abuse.

But surely you see the difference between someone who's been laid off and is collecting a bit of food stamps until they have a job again, and someone who sits on the welfare system and complains that they aren't getting enough to pay for that new sound system they want.

 

[ADG]

In my opinion it is not ok to take money from somebody who has earned to and give it to somebody who has not. We have equal opportunity in this country so the choice of one person should not result in "stealing" from another.

Fox has been hitting on this meme all week I guess, talking about the makers and the takers. Typical Ayn Rand philosophy where the world is made up of leeches taking from the industrious rich and where workers only exist as props, if at all. It's an inaccurate world view as most of the world is made up of workers, not leeches or the rich. And workers in this country have their income redistributed all the time in what is known as 'taxes'. And contrary to what the Ayn Rand delusionists believe, taxes are not bad and neither is government.

This is another difference between the lunatic fringe of the Republican party and actual conservative Republicans. A conservative believes in fiscal responsibility, and questioning the validity of every tax that citizens have to pay, while a member of the lunatic fringe will argue that fiscal resonsibility means eliminating taxes almost entirely, and letting the "magic of the market", as John Stossel calls it, take care of everyone. Total "hands off" capitalism without regulation and without concern for those disenfranchised by the magic of the market, creates robber barons, oppression of the working class, and erosion of basic human rights.

 

[Cephus]

This is true to some extent, from a generational perspective. There have been times in my life when I more than qualified for some type of welfare, and people told me to do it. I didn't. Because there were people who needed it more than I did. I'm young, able-bodied, and able-minded.

While I don't think there's any shame in it, and I did qualify, and welfare is also for temporary relief, I just couldn't. Maybe it's because my family never has, even though they've gone through their bad spells as well. But if I had decided to do it for a couple of months, would that have made me a bad or self-entitled person? No, I don't think so. That's a perfectly proper use of welfare.

If anything, my unwillingness to do it probably made my hardship last longer than it had to. It may have even been unwise for the economy for me not to do it.

So then, is it really the system's fault, or is it the fault of people's upbringing and personal drive? Maybe both. Maybe we need to be examining the attitudes people are growing up with, as well as tightening the laws that allow for abuse.

But surely you see the difference between someone who's been laid off and is collecting a bit of food stamps until they have a job again, and someone who sits on the welfare system and complains that they aren't getting enough to pay for that new sound system they want.

There's certainly a difference who does it for a short time until they get back on their feet and someone who does it for a long period of time and doesn't even try to get back on their feet (or who has never been on their feet, they're just milking the system). While there have been times in my life that I probably could have gotten some sort of public assistance, I've refused it at every turn because I realize I'm personally responsible for my own life and my own decisions. That goes for help from anyone. I stand on my own two feet and, no matter how long it takes, I improve my own life. I expect that of others as well, even if they do choose a bit of assistance while they are working hard to make their own lives better.

 

[liblady]

Some people on welfare and foodstamps, I'm sure are grateful. They are also needed social programs, though in need of reform.
I consider that, taking care of the poor and disabled.
When I think of redistribution of wealth, I think of a government trying to enforce equal stuff for everyone. You should be able to keep most of what you earn and what someone else earns is none of your business.

which is exactly what is happening right now. people keep most of what they earn. our gov't is certainly not trying to enforce equal "stuff" for everyone.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

There's certainly a difference who does it for a short time until they get back on their feet and someone who does it for a long period of time and doesn't even try to get back on their feet (or who has never been on their feet, they're just milking the system). While there have been times in my life that I probably could have gotten some sort of public assistance, I've refused it at every turn because I realize I'm personally responsible for my own life and my own decisions. That goes for help from anyone. I stand on my own two feet and, no matter how long it takes, I improve my own life. I expect that of others as well, even if they do choose a bit of assistance while they are working hard to make their own lives better.

How do you feel about the disabled? They may never get on their feet. Some of them do have legitimate complains about aspects of care that are lacking.

They may also contribute something incredible to humanity. Or they may contribute something small. Regardless, they may assistance forever.

We all have limitations in our success. I know I do. Nothing that keeps me from making my own way, but I do, like everyone else. For some, their limitation happens to be self-sufficiency, even if they can be highly successful in other areas.

 

[Barbbtx]

I've used food banks 4 or 5 separate times in my life. I also received assistance from a charity to pay the electric bill a few years ago and for gas money so my husband could get to work. (I think that was when gas went to $4 and he had to drive like 70 miles a day) That hurt.
I was very grateful for those things and of course gave back when I was able.
We really need to get away from the entitlement mentality. I blame the government for that.

 

[trisha613]

Well, let's keep something in mind.

Without government and public support, no one gets rich. The government provides roads, police, fire brigades, and the infrastructure for practically everything, including your ability to have an internet connection.

Withough people to either hire you or buy your goods or services, you get nowhere. Without the people working under you, taking care of the menial stuff, you get nowhere.

Every rich person owes their success in equal parts both to their own hard work, AND to the society in which they live.

Do we owe anything to people who can't support themselves? The operative word here is "can't." And yes, we do.

Let's keep in mind high IQ is more prevalent in those with mental illness. Let's keep in mind that Stephen Hawking is completely paralysed. Let's keep in mind that even people with severe retardation can be savants.

There are many different metrics upon which to measure human value. Ability to support oneself is not the only one. Great works of art, science, and mathematics have been contributed by people who couldn't support themselves. We wouldn't be where we are as a society without them.

Even if this person is not a genius or a great contributer, that doesn't negate their right to life. They were brought into this world without consent, and if they truly can't support themselves there is no one to blame. This doesn't give us the right to kill them. That isn't what civilised societies do. It also doesn't mean they're a drain on the system. What if they spend their time helping a charity to whatever extent they can, or tutoring kids in piano? Unable to work doesn't mean unable to take part - just that they can't do that on the same schedule or to the same degree as able people can.

Now, with all that said.

Do I think we should tax the rich more? Yes. Do I think we should tax them more than 50% of their income? No.

We're still a capitalist country, and they are still entitled to at least the majority of what they make. Since they have more, and they also rely on society to maintain their status more, they should pay more than people who aren't rich. But I don't believe in "equalizing" people. People are not equal. Sad, but true. Some people are smarter, or more hard-working, or more able than others.

Balance in all things, basically.

Of course without Government and public support no one would be rich, but I'm sure we have different reasonings for that. The Government gives us the right to earn as much money as we want (legally), and the public has a choice where to spend their money, which would result in profits. The Government does "provide" us with roads, police, etc., but OUR taxes pay for it.

There is obviously an exception for the individuals who can't support themselves, but most people can. You say all people are not equal but we are. People are just different and we all have to realize that eventhough one person may be smarter or more motivated it is not an excuse to take from someone else.

It all comes down to choice. It is MY choice to work hard and give myself the best, and if YOUR choice is different than mine, you are not entitled to anything I've earned.

 

[liblady]

I wouldn't include "grateful" in my descriptions of these people:

Man wins lottery, still gets food stamps

Food Stamp Abuse Caught On Camera - News Story - WSB Atlanta

Over $11 Million in California Welfare Funds Spent in Vegas Casinos | The Blaze

2 convicted in separate NH welfare fraud probes - Boston.com

Target 11 Investigates: Welfare Fraud - News Story - WPXI Pittsburgh

And those are the blatant misuses. I grew up in the welfare system and spent a large amount of time around welfare recipients. They're not all down on their knees, thanking Big Brother with tears in their eyes. They're largely demanding, expectant, and assume that they should have to do nothing to receive these benefits, based on their perception of their "need".

just as you can find examples of welfare cheats, i can find examples of ceos cheating shareholders out of millions. you can in no way PROVE that welfare recipents are largely demanding, expectant, and assume that they should have to do nothing to receive these benefits, based on their perception of their "need"

you should remember this next time someone accuses tea partiers of being "largely stupid and racist".